I made a
giant post in this thread about Diablo 2's launch problems. They're not the same.
I have Diablo 2 installed in its 1.00 incarnation and I've played through it recently; trust me, it's not that bad.
Diablo 3 has broken gameplay and isn't fun.
Fugu, help me out here, please, because I have no idea how to progress.
I respect you greatly, really. Based on the posts you made regarding D2, you seem like someone who has 10 times the experience and the skill compared to me in that game.
But, and here is the big but: it does not make your opinion on D3 more rock-solid. It is still going to be a skewed one because obviously, your emotional investment in D2 was great enough that you can just write down things like the parts that I bolded, and not be asked about it. I could post a comment that is similar to yours regarding whether this is good for creating discussions or not.
Personally, when it comes to Diablo III and opinions, besides having my own view (although I understand my own limitations as well: 350+ hours, Wizard/Monk, no perspective over the Barb/WD sight - DH is limited because my girlfriend has one and a friend of mine who I almost exclusively grind with does as well, and I get their mechanics), I
VASTLY prefer the guys over the Diablo III OT who express themselves in a constructive manner and have a fair share of experience behind them as well - Scv, Dahbomb, etc. When it comes to Diablo III, there are TONS of valid arguments to be had. Believe me or read back when I say that most of those arguments were played out greatly in previous threads in the OT.
These arguments can be summed up by these:
-Main weapon DPS having too much of an impact on builds (what to do about it?)
-Legendary items should either be improved vastly (because resources were already spent on creating the unique looks) or the unique textures should at least be used in rares as well (Blizz decided to greatly buff them, good decision, right?)
-The game obviously needed a beta test in Act3/Act4, they are way less polished as they are right now than the first half of Act1 or even Act2. (What to do about it? It can be expanded by new events and a few new zones or mob types, question remains what Blizz will do about it. Diablo II was not immune to this either, if you can say with a straight face that you enjoy Act3 jungle or ActIV first two waypoints up till the Sanctuary, well....good for you!
)
- PVP needs to be implemented
- Crafting was definitely underwhelming in its current state, the removal of the enchanter definitely can be felt (Blizz partially fixes this by improving lv62 weapon stats and crafted legendaries, to a certain extent, but question remains whether it is enough or not)
-The game is still barebones in its current endgame, the equivalent of Uber bosses or some kind of additional challenge rooms need to be implemented (This remains a question mark, but if they really implement a prestige system for 1.0.4, this shows that they are not afraid to be less and less rigid than they originally planned)
-Witch Doctor pets fully broken, class seems like it came from WoW and got lost in the way (at least partially getting solved)
-Some affixes plainly annoying instead of being fun (that is being looked at right now, we shall see whether 1.0.4 fully or "just" largely fixes this)
-All classes need buffs to certain skills to improve build variety (this is touched by 1.0.4, we shall see it in a few days whether it was a good enough attempt for a fix or not).
These kinds of things can be argued upon. When the majority of the players agree on these points (again: those that still play it!), Blizzard has an "easy" job, because obviously, these problems are visible, and they can be fixed.
What cannot be fixed is empty rhetoric like "the game was clearly built around the AH" (even if developers stated that they did not test it with an AH, and there was no big enough tester pool for a virtual economy to be had even for testing purposes - which is very unfortunate), "the gameplay is broken" (This is a brick wall in arguments, a simple brick wall. What do you do about it? You can bash your head against it, jump above it with a high horse or sidestep it, but you cant break it down) or "the game is no fun" (again: same. Nothing to argue about, if it is not fun for you, you obviously do not play it. Those who play it must have some kind of return from it, because otherwise they would not bother).
So how do you feel like we should argue about whether the gameplay is broken or not when the idea of a solid gameplay (or even a mediocre one) is so far removed from both the opinions of those who feel like that this is the best combat any arpg had in the past 5-8 years (like me) or those that feel like that games like Sacred, Titan Quest and others vastly surpass it (like you). There is no middle point to had, no argument to make other than the acknowledgement that both of our opinions are valid, we just simply represent different kind of tastes. Is that good enough? : )