Support NeoGAF

[Kalnos]

If you're looking for a deeper game that focuses on character building then try Path of Exile/Diablo 2 on PC.

If you want to smash shit and watch it fly across the screen then play D3 on whatever platform.

 

[Dyno]

Super fun! Play the monk and add a little Street Fighter to your Diablo.

 

[Antilurker77]

It has the best in it's genre. TL2 comes in at a close second, and PoE tries to play like a 14 year old game.

 

[SegaShack]

Absolutely. As long as you play on the right difficulty it is a very challenging game. You will always encounter powered up enemies that have special powers and you have to be really quick and smart to survive. Combat and the chance of getting special events or better items is what makes the game great.

Demon Hunter for life.

 

[Corsick]

The combat in Diablo 3 is great and feels incredibly satisfying. The problem is almost everything else, imo. When it comes to huge, overarching mechanics and fundamental principles upon which their games are built, newer Blizzard games feel shallow and much less nuanced. Then again, I was always partial to Diablo and Starcraft so I tend to over analyze them. Perhaps that makes my commentary a bit too harsh, but I've tried many times to look at things differently and always come to the same aforementioned conclusion.

 

[LCGeek]

Glad you asked OP. I'm new to Diablo, also. Came in with Diablo 3 on Xbox 360 and *mostly* loved it. GFX are a huge part of it. The cycle of loot grab = cosmetic change = quantifiable and visually stimulating damage, is fantastic. The production values of the game are insane. I personally hadn't enjoyed a co-op 'RPG' like this since Phantasy Star Online or Borderlands.

That said, the thing I found most unsatisfying are the boss encounters. When people say that the game is a mindless hack-n-slash, they're right, which isn't necessarily a 'bad' thing. However, where this became a big annoyance to me was that I was expecting some type of Binding of Issac or Zelda-like strategy (or group strategy) on presumably cool 'pattern based' boss encounters.

This doesn't have that. Max your character out with gear and hit-em hard. That's about it.
Very unfortunate. I can see why people love Diablo. It certainly scratched an itch that hasn't really been touched on consoles since Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance.

The game looks good, is great for pick up and play fun solo or with strangers, has a substantial amount of content to justify the full retail price, and is simply one of those games that so polished that you begin to appreciate why people like the top tier PC developers.

That said, the boss encounters REALLY feel empty to me. Especially considering that the game does a great job with the dramatic buildup toward each encounter. The music and spectacle is 2nd to none....

Bosses feel like shit on lower difficulty. If you're not geared good luck saying that vs any boss or rift guardian T4 and above. Diablo Shadow Clones are no joke either.

 

[kinaesthete]

I'd say the combat is kind of terrible (on console and PC) if you're looking for tactical action but if the RPG layer is enough to sustain interest it could be cool. Can't argue with those feedback FX and animations...

On consoles? Yes.
On PC? No. Fuck click spam.

Does the updated control scheme really help that much when the game is designed around having to clickspam in the first place? After playing some of the PC version and absolutely hating it because of the cursor controls (using the same input to move your dude around and attack/select targets in an real-time game is so terrible I'm amazed it ever became popular), I borrowed a copy of the 360 version and while it is an improvement as far as the controls, the way encounters usually play out still isn't interesting because of the expectation that movement and attacking can't happen at the same time so it turns into a kitefest.

 

[Lashley]

Can't wait for it on PS4

 

[Spinluck]

I loved D3, it was my first Diablo. Im surprised am with all the positive feedback. They must have changed a shit load of stuff since its release. I remember people hating this game when it first released.

I played it on PS3 with my peeps.

 

[charlequin]

You'd think, but ARPG is usually used for diablo-like games.

This is some kind of newfangled thing that seems to have spawned from the recent uptick in Diabloesque games (PoE, Grim Dawn, etc.) People have been calling top-down exploration/action games with character progression (from Zelda to Secret of Mana) and first/third-person action-based games that combine character systems with timing-based combat (from Ultima Underworld on to Skyrim or Dark Souls) ARPGs for far longer than Diablo has had any kind of lock on this term.

 

[TatteredHat]

You think Diablo 3 has better combat then the Witcher or Kingdoms of Amalur? Or Kingdom Hearts 2?

I just had a bit of a brainfart and used ARPG when I should have been a bit more specific because I wanted to refer to isometric top-down ARPGs. There's really no way to make a comparison between say, Dark Souls and Diablo 3, when they could both be called ARPG.

 

[Tekku]

Yep it's fun. I loved the Monk.

 

[BashNasty]

Diablo III's gameplay is best in class. The spells and attacks feel very punchy, hit reactions are ace, the physics and destructibility of the environments add plenty of welcome chaos, and every aspect of the game has legitimate weight to it.

If the gameplay wasn't fun, why on earth would anyone want to grind for loot?

 

[Toxi]

Diablos? Is that Diablo 1, 2 or 3?

It's the one you need high grade earplugs for.

 

[BouncyFrag]

I loved it on the 360.

 

[Galamauth]

Never get into them since I heard they're point and click.

I loved the Record of Lodoss war Dreamcast game and Xanadu Next for PC since you could use a gamepad for those.

 

[Spacecowboy77]

I think it's very fun.

Though, you can claim that the endgame is not that deep as opposed to games like PoE where you can get crazy complicated builds, if that's your thing.

Also, if you are on PC, you can pick up the starter edition for free and try it for yourself. I think you can play until lvl 14.

 

[matty2Dfraud]

Diablo is about as fun as staring at a wall and clicking a mouse button really fast, but it costs more money than that.

 

[Masterbrew]

Combat gameplay is Diablo 3's strongest suit. It is much improved over Diablo 2. It is the other stuff that took a step back, like loot progression and lack of PVP.

 

[Winter John]

Diablo 3 on the 360 was the first game I'd played in the series. I enjoyed it a lot at first, had a lot of fun doing co-op with a friend, but I have to say I was majorly let down when I finished the game and realised that the dungeons weren't randomised or didn't appear to change when I started a new game. After that I lost interest in it.

 

[NewGame]

Diablo II was interesting and different. The combat is just interesting back-and-forths between numbers and general RPGishness with numbers and loots and stuff so if you love to min/max your character it can be quite fun.

The entire series starts and ends with the second game. The first is too gritty and under developed while the third is quite bland and largely nebulous. The second game blends exploration with story elements along with a nice party based multiplayer system (still supported last I checked).

 

[Yoshichan]

It's the one you need high grade earplugs for.

So... no Diablo game, ever?

 

[AzaK]

Not the demoni played. Just mash the sane button over and over doing the same attack. The demo turned me off it.

 

[shadowstar]

Bosses feel like shit on lower difficulty. If you're not geared good luck saying that vs any boss or rift guardian T4 and above. Diablo Shadow Clones are no joke either.

But the goal is to be geared so you CAN facetank everything.

 

[sankt-Antonio]

Diablo II is lots better in the gameplay department. DIII has more "ompth" to it. But that's all show.

 

[Rickenslacker]

Diablo II was interesting and different. The combat is just interesting back-and-forths between numbers and general RPGishness with numbers and loots and stuff so if you love to min/max your character it can be quite fun.

The entire series starts and ends with the second game. The first is too gritty and under developed while the third is quite bland and largely nebulous. The second game blends exploration with story elements along with a nice party based multiplayer system (still supported last I checked).

I think Diablo 2 really struck a balance that no other in the genre has matched, mostly in the way playthrough progression worked. In just about every other game of the type that I've played I'm just inundated with meaningless quests that give equally meaningless rewards that I end up not caring, but Diablo 2 really gave the right quantity of them per act and mostly gave you desirable rewards which made each playthrough satisfying to complete. This is the one where I get the skill point, this is the one where I get free identification, this is the one where I can imbue a weapon with rare modifiers; there are a few pointless ones here and there but they're otherwise ace.

The procedural generation of area layouts is also some of the best of the genre in D2, in many similar games I find myself getting bored with how layouts largely end up being identical.

Diablo II is lots better in the gameplay department. DIII has more "ompth" to it. But that's all show.

Granted, show is a pretty big part of these games.

 

[Toxi]

So... no Diablo game, ever?

Sorry, Monster Hunter joke.

 

[Yoshichan]

Sorry, Monster Hunter joke.

Shit! I need to get into MH asap

 

[Sourtreats]

Witch Doctor, Firebats with the vampire bat rune. Just hold right button and all will die.

 

[akachan ningen]

Gameplay is the best in the genre. but tbh, the genre is pretty limited. it's a loot game.

 

[Sum-Mischief]

Soon as it available for pre-order on PSN i will snatch. Its a must have in my book .

 

[2spooky4me]

Stat distribution boiled down to dumping all your points into vit with enough str for whatever gear you wanted to use.
Skill points are an outdated concept. What could you really do with them? Gonna work on that Hydra build? That seems like a great idea. lol

The way Diablo 3 uses paragon points is superior, something that is actually useful and lets you choose between things you NEED rather than in D2 where you had things you could use, maybe.. that aren't that great compared to other options, most in fact shitty and their only use whatsoever is to be a synergy.

Diablo 2 was a product of its time. I think most of the appeal of the graphics comes down to pre-rendered 3D models of that era being turned into sprites. Music is the best though, story is what it is. Simple. That's about the only knock I have against D3, the story is over-complicated and cartoony. But I'm not playing the story for however many hundreds of hours, thanks to adventure mode you just bypass all of that.

That's a good point. However, I still think a stat distribution system would have benefited the game because it gave you the illusion that every decision you make matters. Every stat and skill point is precious. In Diablo 3, nearly everything about your character is trivial (except for the name you give to it) because you can just re-allocate everything. Even the mercenary can be re-customized any time you like.

 

[PensivePen]

I enjoyed the console version of Diablo 3 cause it felt more like a multiplayer beat 'em up with loot thanks to the dodge function, rather than a typical hack and slash.

 

[Steel]

Diablo is popular for its gameplay. There's a decent story in the game, but it's all about the gameplay and the replay value of that gameplay.

 

[Nymerio]

That's a good point. However, I still think a stat distribution system would have benefited the game because it gave you the illusion that every decision you make matters. Every stat and skill point is precious. In Diablo 3, nearly everything about your character is trivial (except for the name you give to it) because you can just re-allocate everything. Even the mercenary can be re-customized any time you like.

The only benefit of stat distribution would probably be that people wouldn't whine about its absence, but then there would be people whining about how you just dump points into stat X. The paragon point distribution is ok the way it is, if they had proper stat distribution it would have boiled down to about that anyway. I think the permanence of character builds was ok when D2 released because the player base (or at least me and the people I played it with) was younger then and we didn't mind making new characters to try shit out. But that was then and now no-one I'm playing it with has time to put up with that. I like that I can just go ahead and switch a couple skills around when I'm bored without having to create a separate character for a build that may or may not work out in the end.

 

[THEF3AR]

In Diablo 3, I felt that you needed to be the Barbarian to experience "combat" at its fullest.

That's just my opinion though.

 

[SapientWolf]

The real litmus test is, if Diablo 3 had no loot would people still play it?

 

[LCGeek]

The only benefit of stat distribution would probably be that people wouldn't whine about its absence, but then there would be people whining about how you just dump points into stat X. The paragon point distribution is ok the way it is, if they had proper stat distribution it would have boiled down to about that anyway. I think the permanence of character builds was ok when D2 released because the player base (or at least me and the people I played it with) was younger then and we didn't mind making new characters to try shit out. But that was then and now no-one I'm playing it with has time to put up with that. I like that I can just go ahead and switch a couple skills around when I'm bored without having to create a separate character for a build that may or may not work out in the end.

This I love certain parts of D2 myself but the day of taking up a build that becomes useless caused you screwed your points distribution up is gone. I respec all the time especially for different purposes this just isn't that feasible in two at all to the same degree.


Wolf already said it myself. Loot gives me reason to go back and keep upping the difficulty otherwise a playthrough or two is all I would've done for the skills.

 

[Deadstar]

Thinking about picking it up but is there more to it than a loot grind?

The combat is fun yes, however realize that you do not level up your skills to make them more powerful. Instead you hvae a rune system where you can choose any skill you want (once you've reached the lvl requirement) and that gets kind of boring. Though I'd definitely recommend at least one play through of the game.

 

[charlequin]

That's a good point. However, I still think a stat distribution system would have benefited the game because it gave you the illusion that every decision you make matters.

This is why I like to split the difference with auto-assigned stats but a reasonably complex skill allocation system (usually with some abilities that boost individual stats.) Stat allocation is meaningless in almost every game because the math is so simple -- for any particular class or build, there's a single allocation that is objectively correct, and every other possible choice is just less effective. (And that optimal choice is usually either dumping everything in a single stat, or buying a set of stats each to a soft cap.)

In a lot of games the skill allocation system isn't really any more complex for finding the optimal solutions, but the system still brings a lot to the table since players can choose non-optimal builds due to playstyle preference; since there's a qualitative difference between different skills, there are a lot more interesting choices.

Basically, I think Diablo 3 is objectively correct to get rid of raw stat allocation, but made the builds a little too simple with the pure slot system; skill trees with paid respecs would probably be more fun, even if they weren't any more strategically complex.

 

[Big_Al]

As someone who's probably not the most hardcore player with loot em ups in regards to character builds Diablo 3 is definitely the most fun/satisfying of that type of game for me, especially as a Barbarian. Everything is just so damn crunchy and every hit so satisfying. Typically out of all the ones released over the years the only one I never played at the time (regretfully so) was Diablo 2. I tried to play it for the first time after playing Diablo 3 and just didn't like it at all.

 

[Rickenslacker]

The real litmus test is, if Diablo 3 had no loot would people still play it?

I'd play it with the leveling intact, which is why I'm playing Marvel Heroes right now as while loot plays a role it feels like a secondary consideration for most of it. Remove that and I don't get much out of it, which is why I never bothered with Inferno in D3 -- the level cap was too easy to get to (a feat I never managed in D2) and grinding solely for RNG item drops didn't do it for me.

 

[Shining Sunshine]

Stat allocation is meaningless in almost every game because the math is so simple -- for any particular class or build, there's a single allocation that is objectively correct, and every other possible choice is just less effective.

For a bad RPG, maybe.

When there are games like Path of Exile, where every stat is making a huge impact in the overall build, it's not really an excuse.
Devs are just too lazy to figure out the balance and provide choices that they take the easy route of removing it entirely.

Ragnarok Online also had a great stat distribution system where you could turn what would be a traditionally int healing priest into a hybrid str/agi/int battle priest that could still keep up a party.

Heck, even FIFA has stat distrubition that is very meaningful in its gameplay. Height, speed, strength, agility, all play a huge difference into the type of Player Pro that gets made.

 

[Jinko]

Its pretty fun, but can get boring kind of fast as well.

Get it on console though its much better IMO. (at least gameplay wise)

 

[ZenaxPure]

The real litmus test is, if Diablo 3 had no loot would people still play it?

I mean technically people did for the entirety of vanilla D3. Even a year after release D3 was getting an average of a million players daily and it sure as shit wasn't because of the loot (or the dungeons, or the story, or anything else). The combat in conjunction with the very time consuming carrot on the stick paragon leveling kept a lot of people playing pre-2.0.

 

[charlequin]

For a bad RPG, maybe.

When there are games like Path of Exile, where every stat is making a huge impact in the overall build, it's not really an excuse.

But... Path of Exile does exactly what I recommended in that post! In PoE, there's no stat-point allocation at level-up; stat improvements come through skills and items, where the decisions are more interesting because each stat point comes at the cost of some other benefit. It's like the perfect example of why raw stat allocation is completely unnecessary.

Heck, even FIFA has stat distrubition that is very meaningful in its gameplay. Height, speed, strength, agility, all play a huge difference into the type of Player Pro that gets made.

If you want to make stat allocation anything but a terrible mechanic, there's really only two ways to do it: have a wide range of challenges in the game so that you can't optimize for one thing (the Baldur's Gate approch) or provide a squad of characters and make the player balance them all to maximize synergy (the FIFA approach.) Neither really works in a loot RPG.