Diablo III

Because you had to have at least some skill to farm the gold to buy anything worthwhile.
But now, RMT and "n00b in welfare epics" syndrome.

I think the people buying all the top gear problem will sort itself out quickly enough. Those people with that kind of coin to pay their way to the top items will probably get bored and wander off to another game.

Honestly, the system in Diablo II was broken. That's all there is to it. I assumed that they had learned from their mistakes, in the same sense that stuff like ability cooldowns and meaningful energy systems that aren't mana are now standard while they weren't in the original. Diablo II is just an old game that didn't age very well. Clinging to the old systems just because they're old strikes me as a terrible idea. Just as World Of Warcraft learned from D2, I think it's obvious that D3 should learn from World Of Warcraft. While obviously they're not quite the same genre, it's pretty darned close.

edited 1st Aug '11 1:39:43 PM by Clarste

@Adannor: Someone still has to farm the items. Blizzard isn't selling anything — all Auction House trading is done between players. That Zod Rune has to actually drop from a boss to become available to sell.

@Clarste: The value of soulbound items is only to make people commit to owning a piece of gear and to enforce that most boss drops are only achievable by killing the boss yourself. In a completely open economy like Diablo's where all the gear is randomized and there is no boss-specific loot save for quest items, there's no point in soulbinding. It's a very different economic model.

edited 1st Aug '11 1:50:23 PM by Fighteer

But when it does drop in enough quantity to become sellable, it will be sold.
And somebody may present it as a proof of skill and turn out to be a noob that barely leveled to 99 and then just flushed the AH.

Also, I'm not bothered by that issue, just ended up as another representative Clarste's side somehow

edited 1st Aug '11 1:53:12 PM by Adannor

I highly doubt that anyone would make a legitimate or serious claim to leetness in an open economy like that merely due to owning gear. Rather, there will be proof in the game in the form of achievements or bound quest items that you achieved certain goals. And anyway, why is the size of your epeen dependent on being able to compare it to others'?

edited 1st Aug '11 1:54:12 PM by Fighteer

It's a different economic model that's objectively worse as far as I'm concerned. Diablo 2 just wasn't that good, in the long run. If Diablo 3 is just Diablo 2 with better graphics and new classes, I doubt it would survive too long compared to more modern games. From what I've seen so far, it's not quite that, but if it doesn't update it's economy that could be a dealbreaker for me.

edited 1st Aug '11 1:55:13 PM by Clarste

You realize that you can play the game entirely solo if you want to and never interact with other players or with the economy. Again, why does the size of someone else's epeen have anything to do with your own personal enjoyment of the game?

Just because you can avoid doesn't mean that you can't disapprove of it, nor does it mean you shouldn't criticize it.

edited 1st Aug '11 2:06:22 PM by Neo_Crimson

It's not about epeen, it's about character progression. It's all about items in Diablo but if all the best items are on the Auction House and ridiculously rare otherwise, then it means that progression is all about farming gold (or paying with real money, but I can easily ignore that). Which turns the entire game into a grind for money. All grind, all the time. There is literally nothing else if character progression is tied purely to gold. That's my gameplay, unless I choose to intentionally cripple myself with a Self-Imposed Challenge of not using the gold I earn in-game.

edited 1st Aug '11 2:15:50 PM by Clarste

Would that be Original Flavour of Diablo 2?

edited 1st Aug '11 2:18:30 PM by Adannor

I'm sure Blizzard will come up with something tricky to keep things in line.

edited 1st Aug '11 2:18:51 PM by MarkVonLewis

Well, I was planning to buy this game. Not anymore. Thanks, Blizzard, for giving a big Fuck You to everyone in the military, who won't be able to play D3 when they're deployed.

Can't connect to battle.net overseas?

No, deployed soldiers aren't allowed internet access. Apparantly.

Oh, well, that also means no World Of Warcraft, and a whole crapload of other games. With all due respect, you've somehow managed to live this long without Diablo III, so not having it in the future is not going to cause some unimaginable existentialist crisis.

edited 1st Aug '11 2:32:52 PM by Fighteer

"It's all about items in Diablo but if all the best items are on the Auction House and ridiculously rare otherwise, then it means that progression is all about farming gold"

What do you think will be the best way to farm gold?
What would be the problem if it turns out to be exactly the same way that you'd otherwise use to farm your specific rare? Except now, if you get a good rare for a different class, you do not scream "WHY COULDN'T IT BE MY RARE?!", you go and sell that rare and buy your rare.
(Though it still leaves the "un-rares": rare items that are actually useless. And if you got one of them you sort of wasted your chance at a real rare, state well known to me by Ragnarok Online )

I wish they had retained the Assassin class. I'm probably going to play the monk in D3 simply because it has the elements of the Assassin that I liked, particularly the speed part.

I hope that there are "unarmed" weapons like the Cestus that enhance the martial arts aspect.

I think what Blue Ninja was getting at is depending on where the deployment is, internet connection can be unreliable at best, non-existent at worst.

I don't imagine Afghanistan has a robust internet infrastructure. Chances are any wireless/satellite resources the bases have are probably gonna be used for military purposes, not recreation.

So thus, needing an always-on connection bars military members who are deployed in a remote, netless region from playing the single-player of D3.

World Of Warcraft is an MMO, and by its nature requires an internet connection. Diablo has always had a single player component, and forcing everyone to be constantly connected is an artificial restriction. That's the difference, and it's a big one.

edited 2nd Aug '11 8:25:29 AM by Talby

Yeah, it shouldn't be hard to make an offline mode completely detached from online. Why don't they do it when a lot of fans expect singleplayer is a mystery.

That's all I want. An offline single player mode, and the ability to play over my LAN. Warcraft, Warcraft 2, Star Craft, Diablo and Diablo 2 all had this. Why can't Diablo 3?

Starcraft 2 doesn't offer LAN play either. Seems like that's the future of games. It also makes it tons easier to prevent piracy, FYI. Choosing not to buy these is voting with your wallet, so we'll see how it sells with consumers.

If it's a vote with wallets, chances are, the next couple of Blizzard games after D3 are going to follow in its footsteps and forsake a single player mode.

For it to be a vote with wallets there must be an option. There isn't. There is only a choice to vote for what they chosen, or not vote at all. It can not prove them that including single player would have landed them more monies.