Diablo III

[Gelsamel]

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.

Except for that part where I explicitly said that you just had a bad example and not that your point was wrong and that I don't contend that D2's sytem is perfect and even gave a good version of the example you wanted to give for you? Ie. I wasn't nitpicking to disprove your whole argument was just pointing out a slight factual error. Seriously....

'greater customization'

Oh. My. God. I cannot say a thing.

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.

WELL DEFINED COMBAT SCENARIOS. Notice the bit where I even said "Minimising Kill Time" thats part of the scenario I gave? If your build is about maxing CC then there will be a best build for that too in well defined combat scenarios. Jesus christ.

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.

Except all the questions about respecs and all the mention of respeccing in regards to WoW, ME, Oblivion and SO2.

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.

A notion I'VE NEVER CONTENDED for you to have to 'stand by it'. Holy shit.

less than what is available in D3.

What the fuck. There are no words.

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?

It probably won't happen to the same extent in D3, but thats irrelevant to everything I've been talking about here. This isn't a holy crusader to demonstrate how D2 is perfect and D3 would be better for not changing a thing from D2. It's a bad thing with D3's loadout mechanics, it's not really a bad thing with D2's mechanics. Is it a bad thing I can't get both shadowstep and mutilate in WoW (or what ever they've changed all the talents to)?

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.

A judgement I've never denied, and in fact, repeatedly affirmed. But ultimately has nothing to do with my point about customisation mechanics.



How. The. Fuck. Can I say this any simpler?

You know what? I can't. I'll have someone else say it for me: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1 ... hp?print=1 Apply this to the specific mechanics of customisation (not anything else that comes with the game, the customisation as gameplay itself) in various RPGs and other games lauded for customisation (of anything, character appearnce, world, character build, lifestyle etc) and then compared to D3.

[skeptical scientist]

Oh. My. God. I cannot say a thing.
...
How. The. Fuck. Can I say this any simpler?

Am I the only one who thinks it's a little crazy that people are getting this emotional over an argument about a video game that isn't even out yet?

[mike-l]

Am I the only one who thinks it's a little crazy that people are getting this emotional over an argument about a video game that isn't even out yet?

"In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake."

[Coin]

Ease up Gelsamel; you're being rude.
The point you're trying to make is opaque despite your explanations and none here are trying to be obtuse just to wind you up.

[Gelsamel]

Oh. My. God. I cannot say a thing.
...
How. The. Fuck. Can I say this any simpler?

Am I the only one who thinks it's a little crazy that people are getting this emotional over an argument about a video game that isn't even out yet?

Amazement is an emotion I rarely feel in discussions, but it does happen from time to time. Is it really that crazy?


Edit:

Ease up Gelsamel; you're being rude.
The point you're trying to make is opaque despite your explanations and none here are trying to be obtuse just to wind you up.

I don't agree with that characterisation but if you and any others feel that way, then that is okay. As long as you realise rudeness has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, I'm happy.

As for being obtuse. Sorry, I honestly can't see how when I literaly say stuff like "It's not about greater/more/less/width/breadth/narrowness of customisation in D3" multiple times and people repond to me with discussion points about how D3 is more flexible and has more customisation, that they aren't being obtuse. I don't think it's purposeful, or an attempt to wind me up... but it's both there and awe inspiring.

Edit2: Fixed silly typo...

[mike-l]

I'm pretty sure I understand Gel at this point. Most of us are arguing that there is depth in the final product of customization, that there are meaningful and interesting choices of what your character ends up looking like. He's arguing that the process of getting to those tools is shallow, there's no interesting game play around actually picking your build. Both these things can simultaneously be true (and I posit that they are)

Is that about right Gel?

[Gelsamel]

I'm pretty sure I understand Gel at this point. Most of us are arguing that there is depth in the final product of customization, that there are meaningful and interesting choices of what your character ends up looking like. He's arguing that the process of getting to those tools is shallow, there's no interesting game play around actually picking your build. Both these things can simultaneously be true (and I posit that they are)

Is that about right Gel?

Sure, but I've explained my terminology multiple times thoughout this discussion. The flexibility and array of options for the final product of customisation is not something I call depth, I call it width or breadth... variety and 'a wide array of different combinations' and a 'broad variation in personalising the combat gameplay' etc. etc. The link I linked also explains how this thing is broad; "If the players felt the game overall didn't have enough variety you can add more game mechanics to the game. Think of this as increasing the game's "breadth."" ie. if there are few options for your loadout then there needs to be more variety so add more options (but if the options are the same, that doesn't help so also be more flexibility in the options) this increases the game's breadth. This is the first time I've ever encountered issues with this terminology. But it should have been settled when I explained the words.

But you're right, thats why I used the word 'process' and 'mechanics' and 'gameplay' so many times when refering to customisation because I wasn't talking about width or amount of options or 'greater' or 'lesser' I was talking about the gameplay itself.

To the link again, 'shallow gameplay is like checking items off a shopping list', sound like anything we know? It doesn't matter if the end result is the same! After all, all games are are ultimately just giant spreadsheets and databases with numbers and functions that interact with each other. What matters is the experience, not the end result. And in D3 the experience of customising yourself is shit; it's boring and it's shallow. It's checking items off your customisation shopping list, you're hardly 'building' anything.

It's absolutely good that it's more flexible and quicker for someone to get into the fight (although there isn't any role-based hassle created by D3's combat mechanics that needs to be compensated for, like in WoW) but as a sequel to D2, a game people are still playing quite a god damn bit (myself included) mostly for the building up of their characters... well it really doesn't feel like a sequel in the customisation compartment at all.

This isn't to say D3 doesn't have any gameplay at all in customisation. Obviously you still have to make choices. It's just shallow gameplay.


The assault on D2 as though that somehow fixes D3's problems is ridiculous too. What about WoW? Sure they had useless talents but they still handled character buildin pretty well. The downside was in WoW you don't ever have truly weird builds but that is also because of the role-based system they use (a melee or trispec mage would be very difficult to pull off in WoW...). But no one decries WoW for not allowing you to have ALL the special talent powers like Shadowstep AND Addrenaline Rush And Mutilate And the Blade Dance or whatever. And WoW has useless specs too, if you put every point into tier 1/2/3 talents of each tree then you'll be junk (at least in early WotLK WoW, I don't know what it's like now). But building characters was enormous fun in WoW because there was gameplay in figuring out how to build your character. You had gameplay there, a process, a goal, a challenge, and meaningful player skills (like analysing how the talents will interact among others) to meet that goal/challenege.

Again, D3 isn't devoid of these, it's just incredibly shallow in comparison.

[Izawwlgood]

Oh. My. God. I cannot say a thing.
...
How. The. Fuck. Can I say this any simpler?

Am I the only one who thinks it's a little crazy that people are getting this emotional over an argument about a video game that isn't even out yet?

There's only one person whose getting emotional here. The rest of us are trying to have a rational civil discussion.

You know what? I can't. I'll have someone else say it for me: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1 ... hp?print=1 Apply this to the specific mechanics of customisation (not anything else that comes with the game, the customisation as gameplay itself) in various RPGs and other games lauded for customisation (of anything, character appearnce, world, character build, lifestyle etc) and then compared to D3.

Yup. I will; D3 has deeper customization than D2. The Sims has greater customization than any Diablo game. Sim City does too. I'm not seeing how this article clarifies or supports your point.


Look, again, you keep repeating this phrase 'customization as gameplay itself' or 'depth of mechanic' and you repeatedly won't define why D2 specifically has more than D3, or, every example you provide is immediately debunked and you say 'that's not customization as gameplay!. I've asked you now THREE times to specifically clarify your point, and your response is enhanced rudeness, linking an article and saying 'Apply this to D2' when it in no way shape or form demonstrates your point that D3 has 'less customization as gameplay', or bring up games as apples to oranges comparisons to demonstrate that D3 has a lack of customization. So;

And in D3 the experience of customising yourself is shit; it's boring and it's shallow. It's checking items off your customisation shopping list, you're hardly 'building' anything.

THIS is why we keep coming back to this same circular argument. Tell me SPECIFICALLY how the 'depth of gameplay' is deeper in D2 as you build your character than it is in D3. You used the phrase 'checking items off a shopping cart', a description that PRECISELY can be used to describe leveling a character or setting up a build in D2, WoW, ME, SO, really, any game, even D3. The difference is along the way, you seem to be under the impression that D2 'does it better' than D3, an assertion that doesn't make sense given your definitions, and doesn't make sense given everything we keep telling you.

[Will]

Sure, but I've explained my terminology multiple times thoughout this discussion.

Ok, here's the issue: at no point in this discussion have you explained what you meant by "depth"* except in negative terms -- saying "that's not depth" repeatedly to people's points is not a clear explanation of what you mean by "depth".

Since reading the gamasutra article I think I have a better sense of what you're trying to get at. Here's the key bit:

To me, [depth] describes a sweet spot -- that point during a game where the player can repeatedly display his mastery of a game mechanic. Challenges never stay the same long enough to be boring and yet they also don't change so fast that the player can't enjoy his mastery over the game.

It's a little hard to apply this to character building, since that's not actually "gameplay" per se but is intimately linked with it. By this definition, "depth" means that skill is necessary to build a good character. This was certainly true of D2 -- there are an enormous number of *possible* builds, but only a tiny fraction of them were viable. And that's the key--if every possible build is viable, there is no skill required to pick a good build.
The assertion your making about D3's system is twofold: 1) that D3's system is shallow (by the above definition of depth) and 2) that it's shallow because of it's mechanics.
Let's start with 2:
Your assertion that the mechanics of D3's system make the game shallow is just plain wrong. There is absolutely no reason that the mechanic itself makes the system deep or shallow. There are still meaningful choices to make -- choose six skills out of a possible 25, and choose one rune out of five for each skill, plus choose one passive skill out of 18**. That's not just breadth of options; the fact that you have to make choices about which skills to use together leaves plenty of room for depth as well.

Frankly, we don't know how deep or shallow the game is, because (to my knowledge) nobody in this thread works for Blizz and has been able to play past level 13.

How is there room for depth in this system? Plenty of things: one, as I enumerated above, there are *lots* of possible builds. The likelihood is that some of these will be straight up better than others. But there's a more important point that others have brought up: different builds will emphasize different party roles or player skills: be it straight DPS, tanking damage, or ranged skills that allow the player to kite easily. This creates plenty of room for player skill -- figuring out what skills work together best to make their character a good tank, or how they can set their build up to kite individual mobs.

Frankly, though, there's one thing that's inescapable about this kind of depth: skill requires that there be good choices and that there be bad choices; the skill comes in learning which is which. In general, increasing the depth means increasing the number of poor or incorrect choices. In gameplay, this is a good thing--StarCraft, for example, is a deep and interesting strategy game because there are a lot of ways to play the game wrong that a skilled opponent can exploit. But as I mentioned above, character creation isn't the same thing as gameplay. In this case, I'd argue it's actually a good thing that D3 is aiming to reduce the amount of skill required in character creation***. Not everybody enjoyed working out what a good build was in D2--I might actually argue that D2's system was too deep and not broad enough. D3's developers are explicitly aiming to make a system that has fewer dead ends and more viable options. That sounds a lot more fun than finding out after 30 hours that my Thorns Pally can't get anywhere because Thorns is terrible. If that makes the system less "deep", then nuts to depth.

Anyway, we won't know for sure for a few more weeks. But I'm definitely excited about what I've seen so far.


* until you linked the above gamasutra article, three full days after this discussion began
** These are the Wizard numbers, I assume they're similar for other classes
*** This sentence originally read "...reduce the depth of the system." It's worth noting that we generally consider "depth" to be a good thing; this is a case where this kind of depth may not be. Choice of terms is important.

[mike-l]

Gel is saying that the D2 customization itself is like a mini-game, and he likes that. The 'mini-game' of customization in D3 is indeed very shallow.

Iz is saying that customization in D3 gives you choices with interesting and meaningful results, which fits the definition of depth.

[Will]

Iz is saying that customization in D3 gives you choices with interesting and meaningful results, which fits the definition of depth.

Not necessarily. Choices can be meaningful without requiring great skill--by the definition I used above, this would be closer to "breadth" rather than "depth". The distinction's a bit academic, but that's the whole problem with this conversation--nobody is taking time to define what they mean when they say something as vague and subjective as "depth", and then can't seem to figure out why other people don't understand what they mean.

[Izawwlgood]

Gel is saying that the D2 customization itself is like a mini-game, and he likes that. The 'mini-game' of customization in D3 is indeed very shallow.

Didn't he state that the action of placing points isn't what he was talking about?

plus choose one passive skill out of 18**

Three passives.

This was certainly true of D2 -- there are an enormous number of *possible* builds, but only a tiny fraction of them were viable. And that's the key--if every possible build is viable, there is no skill required to pick a good build.

This comes back to the granularity thing though; having the freedom at lvl 90 to, say, put 20 pts in MegaDoom and 20 pts in ExplodoPain isn't terribly different from putting 21 pts in MegaDoom and 19 in ExplodoPain. You have a greater ability to fine tune things perhaps, but this difference is, in my opinion, insignificant, and overall detrimental to build setup. If I wanted MegaDoom to be more powerful, I prefer slotting a rune or passive that makes it so, and making ExplodoPain my 'junk mob clearance ability'. This statement is muddied a bit by the skill names perhaps.

Not necessarily. Choices can be meaningful without requiring great skill--by the definition I used above, this would be closer to "breadth" rather than "depth". The distinction's a bit academic, but that's the whole problem with this conversation--nobody is taking time to define what they mean when they say something as vague and subjective as "depth", and then can't seem to figure out why other people don't understand what they mean.

I don't see how the skill of the player affects the depth of the choice. Stat/skill placement or ability/passive selection can be quite nuanced, and if I'm only nabbing the ones that have a pretty picture, I may be neglecting to take advantage of said nuance, but that doesn't mean the nuance itself, or specifically, the presence of the nuance, is destroyed.

[Will]

I don't see how the skill of the player affects the depth of the choice.

Because I've defined "depth" as "requiring player skill". That's certainly not the only valid definition of depth, but it's the one Gel seems to be using. It's also not the only axis that's relevant to judging how fun a system is, which is where I think we fundamentally disagree with Gel--a system does not have to have this specific type of depth to be interesting, varied or engaging. And it's perfectly valid to say "D3's system is deep because it provides a lot of meaningful choices about how I want my character to function" -- that's a different kind of depth than the kind that requires player skill.

[Gelsamel]

I don't see how the skill of the player affects the depth of the choice.

Because I've defined "depth" as "requiring player skill". That's certainly not the only valid definition of depth, but it's the one Gel seems to be using. It's also not the only axis that's relevant to judging how fun a system is, which is where I think we fundamentally disagree with Gel--a system does not have to have this specific type of depth to be interesting, varied or engaging. And it's perfectly valid to say "D3's system is deep because it provides a lot of meaningful choices about how I want my character to function" -- that's a different kind of depth than the kind that requires player skill.

If by "requiring player skill" you mean in the sense that the article I linked uses "meaningful skill".

As in, a lot of people might say, well, building a house in The Sims doesn't 'require player skill' in the sense that someone might call themselves skilled at games (in which case they're talking about reaction speed and their intelligence and other stuff). But it does 'require skill' in that you have to know how to use the tools of the game to produce an end goal you desire. Again, to use the 'enumerated presets' comparison: Choosing the house you like from a list of houses only requires the skill of knowing how to choose something.

"It can't be stressed enough that I'm referring to meaningful skills. "Meaningful" is an incredibly important part of this equation. If a skill is too basic, it will not help make your mechanic feel deeper. At that point, it becomes a simple task the player must complete, like checking items off a shopping list."

In that case the process of D3's character customisation does not require 'meaningful skills' and is not deep per the definition of the article.

What about depth because of the choices one has for how the character functions? Well again, I'd call that width. But I did, more than 10 times if I recall correctly, mention that I'm talking about the process, the gameplay and the mechanics... NOT the end result, it's flexibility, or it's breadth.

Is customisation a 'minigame'. I wouldn't call it a minigame, I would call it a subset of the whole game, like combat is a subset of the whole game (good games have good integration of these subgames). However, online D2 is almost exclusively the customisation game. It really is. A ridiculous amount of people play Ladder Only, which means they delete all their characters when Ladder resets. The only actual 'combat gameplay' most people do other than PvP is leveling up in Baal runs of Ubers or MFing (to get more items to build more characters)... which means the vast majority of gameplay is just the actual process of the designing, planning, building, leveling and gearing out of various characters... then mostly people sit around and farm for super rare items to put on d2jsp, or just to screenshot and show off their characters or their finds... or PvP... but even PvP is mostly about just verifying or showing off what your process of customisation resulted in.

So really pretty much everyone on D2 right now is playing for 1) Building characters (Ie. the customisation subgame) 2) Showing off (Perfect item rolls, PvP, Top of the Ladder).


Anyway I don't have time to comment on everything, have to get to level 38.

[Izawwlgood]

But I did, more than 10 times if I recall correctly, mention that I'm talking about the process, the gameplay and the mechanics... NOT the end result, it's flexibility, or it's breadth.

And I directly addressed that sentiment; there's no difference between have 15 pts available at lvl 25, and putting 10 of those points into Holy to unlock the Chakra ability, and 5 into the +5% crit passive, or, at lvl 25, having Chakra unlock and being able to slot it and the +5% crit passive.

[Vaniver]

You know what? I can't. I'll have someone else say it for me: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1 ... hp?print=1 Apply this to the specific mechanics of customisation (not anything else that comes with the game, the customisation as gameplay itself) in various RPGs and other games lauded for customisation (of anything, character appearnce, world, character build, lifestyle etc) and then compared to D3.

Ok, let's apply that.

In D2, what does the character building objective look like? "I want an effective character that matches my vision." What do the actions involved look like? "I will progress through the game, killing monsters to unlock skill points that allow me to incrementally construct my build. I get feedback on how the skills work together, but I can only use that feedback to change future point allocations, not past point allocations."

In D3, what does the character building objective look like? The same thing: "I want an effective character that matches my vision." What do the actions involved look like? "I will select a small number of skills from an arsenal to construct my build."

You're right that the character creation minigame is decoupled from the killing monsters minigame. But this seems like a good thing that improves both the character creation process and the game as a whole. I can now act on the feedback I get to fix past choices I made- if it turns out after putting a point into Shock Armor that I don't like it all that much, I can head back to town and take it out. It allows me to consider very different options in a short amount of time- once I level a single wizard up high enough, I now have access to all wizard builds. I can play the character creation minigame by itself without playing the monster killing minigame.

Am I the only one who thinks it's a little crazy that people are getting this emotional over an argument about a video game that isn't even out yet?

I suspect the emotion stems from the communication difficulties, not the underlying issue.

[Coin]

Well, using this new definition of depth, which is completely different from any I've ever heard, things become very different.
How about looking at the attribute allocation system? That would be a very shallow one indeed since the optimum build is "put everything into Vitality minus what ever is necessary to use your gear" unless you're playing a weird Shield Sorc build in which case mana will also be important.

[BoomFrog]

Am I the only one who thinks it's a little crazy that people are getting this emotional over an argument about a video game that isn't even out yet?

I suspect the emotion stems from the communication difficulties, not the underlying issue.

Diablo II is considered by many to be one of the greatest games they ever played. (I and I think Gelsamel are in this group) For people who spend a large majority of their free time playing games this is a very important sequel and we'd like it to live up to it's potential. There's nothing wrong with being passionate about your hobby.

The communication difficulties seem to me to be coming from the fact that it has become a very detailed and nuanced discussion that needs precise terminology. In other words, the communication difficulty is because of the emotion involved, not the other way around.

[The Utilitarian]

Am I the only one who thinks it's a little crazy that people are getting this emotional over an argument about a video game that isn't even out yet?

I suspect the emotion stems from the communication difficulties, not the underlying issue.

Diablo II is considered by many to be one of the greatest games they ever played. (I and I think Gelsamel are in this group) For people who spend a large majority of their free time playing games this is a very important sequel and we'd like it to live up to it's potential. There's nothing wrong with being passionate about your hobby.

The communication difficulties seem to me to be coming from the fact that it has become a very detailed and nuanced discussion that needs precise terminology. In other words, the communication difficulty is because of the emotion involved, not the other way around.

Man I just don't have this feeling about Diablo II. It was a good game to be sure but there was a lot about it I disliked, especially if your experience of it was earlier on. I think it's an important point to consider that RELEASE DII looked nothing like it does now, so to expect DIII to live up to a game that had years of revision and expansion to refine it is perhaps a little unfair. Sure it could be argued that they could have taken all they learned from DII and just copied it whole cloth to DIII but I'm kind of glad they didn't. I like that this feels like a NEW game not just an updated DII. Frankly I felt that way about SCII, where they left the original formula so perfectly in tact I barely felt like it was a new game at all.

[jules.LT]

A choice of skills won't be enough to be successful in Hell difficulty. You're going to need an equipment fine-tuned to that choice of skills, and *that* will be much harder to switch around. Does that make you feel a bit better, Gelsamel?

[mosc]

No Steam, right? I pre-ordered amazon style but I would much rather buy through Steam.

[The Utilitarian]

No Steam, right? I pre-ordered amazon style but I would much rather buy through Steam.

Nah Blizzard is offering it for digital purchase and download directly from them. Looks like they're intending to deal with their own digital games rather than outsource to steam.

[Lostdreams]

Blizzard/Battle.net has a pretty good system with a lot of account integration so this isn't bad. It's not like it's Origin or anything, because... fuck EA.

[Diadem]

Blizzard always manages its own games. And why shouldn't they, they've invested a lot into battle.net, to make it a very smooth-running platform. They don't need steam.

How does blizzard handle it if you lose your download though? With steam you can just redownload. I assume the same is true for blizzard, but I have no experience with their direct downloads. Anybody know anything about how they work? Is there a limit on reinstalls or other b.s. like that?

[The Utilitarian]

Blizzard always manages its own games. And why shouldn't they, they've invested a lot into battle.net, to make it a very smooth-running platform. They don't need steam.

How does blizzard handle it if you lose your download though? With steam you can just redownload. I assume the same is true for blizzard, but I have no experience with their direct downloads. Anybody know anything about how they work? Is there a limit on reinstalls or other b.s. like that?

You can redownload and reinstall as many times as you like. Since it's linked to your b.net account you just log back in and get the downloader again.

[Izawwlgood]

They're doing the annoying thing of requiring you to log into your bnet account to play the game. So, think WoW; you can install it anywhere you want as often as you want, but you can only play by logging into your account.

[Lostdreams]

If you missed any of them before, all of the class specific sigils are available again on the Diablo 3 website for another week?.

[lizkatz]

Oh. My. God. I cannot say a thing.
...
How. The. Fuck. Can I say this any simpler?

Am I the only one who thinks it's a little crazy that people are getting this emotional over an argument about a video game that isn't even out yet?

No!!! because it is diablo 3! we have been pulled and pushed, poked, and teased for so many years about this release!!!! of course there are emotions! >.<

[The Utilitarian]

Soon.

[Nylonathatep]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzhoGX_7 ... ure=g-vrec

I think this should answer some questions Gelsamel raises. It's an old video and what the developers want might not come out as they wanted... but I'm a happier person after watching that video. That video shows that the D3 Developers have an objective in mind and that it wants to make as many viable builds as possible and that all builds shouldn't be significantly less viable in Inferno then any other builds; you can make a petless Witch doctor or a Melee Wizard that's is not only playable but still be competitive vs any other builds in D3.

[mosc]

Do you think the D2 developers had a DIFFERENT goal than that? Do you think they made skills and said "you know what, lets make this skill really weak and useless in comparison with another skill". Balance is a joke. You will still get laughed at for your D3 equivalent of a druid with pets.

[Izawwlgood]

I think D2 made no effort to balance ALL skills, and instead focused on balancing builds. No developer said "Man, Teeth is a really under utilized ability, lets make it better".

Also, this is true.
Sorcs have 30 skills. Wizards have 28, and each has 6 runes. They also have what, 15 passives, and can select 3.

[Diadem]

I'm very much in doubt if I should buy diablo from the blizzard site, or buy an off-line copy.

Downloading is much more convenient. But for some reason it's 10 euros more expensive. Which is insane. How can it be 20% cheaper to make a physical disc and transport that halfway across the world and then add a profit margin for the retail shop.

How expensive is Diablo 3 for American customers? Or any other nation. I suspect at €55,- I'm getting ripped off for being Dutch.

[mfb]

Do you think they made skills and said "you know what, lets make this skill really weak and useless in comparison with another skill".

Ice blast, fire bolt? Yes I think so.
Balancing is easier if everything scales with weapon damage. This was not true in D2, but it is in D3.


@Diadem: Amazon&co are cheaper than the download, and not so unconvenient.

[Diadem]

@Diadem: Amazon&co are cheaper than the download, and not so unconvenient.

Good tip. Unfortunately bol.com is even more expensive (60 euros), as is amazon.de, which has it at €56,60. Cheapest is amazon.com which only charges $55,99, which is like €44,-. But I can't order from there without a credit card, and it'll take a long time to deliver.

So postorder is more expensive than direct download, which makes sense. But why the fuck are both more expensive than buying it in a retail shop? And it's not just this game, it seems to be a general pattern. I've never been able to wrap my mind around that.

But how expensive is a diablo 3 direct download in other nations? Can anyone answer that?

[Jesse]

£45 here in the UK, which is £10 more expensive than retail, thus I now have a retail copy ordered. Blizzard is the same, their download service is horribly overpriced.

[Obby]

In the US it's been $60 at every retailer I've checked. There was a short time where Amazon had it for 10% off if you ordered it within some ridiculously short time window and with a couple other items from them, but other than that it's been $60 pretty much everywhere here. I purchased it directly from Blizzard, because downloading is more convenient than having to wait (and pay) to get it shipped, or rushing out and hoping to find it in a store somewhere (and pay taxes on it).

[Xeio]

I'm very much in doubt if I should buy diablo from the blizzard site, or buy an off-line copy.

Downloading is much more convenient. But for some reason it's 10 euros more expensive. Which is insane. How can it be 20% cheaper to make a physical disc and transport that halfway across the world and then add a profit margin for the retail shop.

I'd go for the physical copy then, once you register the CD key on your b.net account you can download it anyway.

The only downside is ship time, depending on if you absolutely must play it at release or not.

[LLCoolDave]

You can also just buy a cd-key at slightly cheaper than retail price and still download the game. Cheapest option if you don't care about having a worthless physical copy dust on your shelf. There's plenty of reputable shops for this stuff out there.

[Drumheller769]

I plan to attempt to pick this up after work from a local Gamestop....we will see how that goes.