SonicBoyster

@dezvous said:

One other thing. This one really bothered me.

How many of you died when Vernon pointed the gun in your face?

So the only option to get out of that situation alive is to "calmly take the gun?" What kind of madness is that!? You see that in movies all the time, but I don't think that bullshit works. That's not something I would EVER do in real life. For a number of reasons, if that person was scared they would be likely to shoot you as soon as you made any forward progress towards them. I know this is a video game but I feel like this game has been so realistic within the confines of it's decidedly unrealistic zombie premise. Things were never theatrical for the sake of being theatrical.

Here's my real problem with it though. So you're telling me that if I don't take the gun from this guy, he shoots me in the head without hesitation? That doesn't add up. Apparently this same guy that will shoot you in the face and end your life will LET you calmly take the gun out of his hands.

No way, someone willing to let you take the gun from them is obviously not looking to kill you. They would sooner let the gun down themselves than shoot you. That's why I didn't calmly take the gun away from him the first time and I was upset that the only option was to calmly take it from him.

It didn't seem like Vernon pulling the trigger when I got killed. Instead it seemed like the curtain was pulled back and I could see the developers forcing his hand so that to resolve the situation I had to make the cinematic move and "calmly take the gun away from him." It seemed like the kind of situation where the end result is the same no matter the action taken, or he shoots you when you go for the gun or he moves back more or something.

Yeah, this, combined with the first FPS sequence in the game drove me nuts. In the first FPS sequence you have to shoot a bunch of zombies to save Clem but the last zombie is invincible. I reloaded that save 4 times thinking I could kill them all only to have the last zombie absorb 6 bullets to the head before chuck came and killed it. Do not ever give me control if I can't actually impact anything going on in front of me, it's a bunch of bullshit, and it makes the rest of the game from that point forward feel like autopilot. This episode was weak and filled with contrivances, and I hate to be that guy but that's exactly how I felt about Book of Eli. You can't give me two and a half hours of wandering around looking for stuff with zombies magically showing up out of nowhere every other scene with no explanation and causing no one any grief at all because we have infinite ammo all of a sudden, and then end it with some twist that everyone knew was coming. No bueno. I'm still looking forward to the finale, but we need to go back to the old writing style or something for this one.

I feel like kind of a bitch for chiming in here, and it's just one voice amidst so many, but I'm really disappointed too. I used to come to this site every single day for news and entertainment but for what seems like months I've been hitting the place ever few days just to pick up a quick look or two I've missed. I'll stay subscribed for now but I guess I'm just really hoping these guys have actual, legitimate technical issues screwing them out of producing content, as opposed to them being blocked off from producing content by CBS because they can't get approved or all of their requests are just being shoved into some tube that's going to take months for approval.

@Binman88 said:

The realisation that your choices don't really make much of a difference to the story really diminishes the appeal of this game for me. People have been lauding this game (myself included) for being less of an adventure game, and more a game about player choice and communicating with different characters. Unfortunately it seems that ultimately the story is going in one direction and you don't have all that much say in the matter at all. Not saying it's necessarily a bad game because of it, but it's not the game I thought I was playing for the first two episodes. Feels a bit hollow to me now.

I find this attitude a little odd, though really common, and I think it's strictly because video games have trained us over the years that we're all gods with the power to create worlds and stop the apocalypse. This game is *completely and utterly* about player choice and building relationships, there's no two-ways about it, and it's obvious in every episode of the game so far. People seem to believe that because a character dies all the time spent with that character is now somehow worthless, and that's a very video-gamey way to see story-telling. Believing that a choice is meaningless because any decision has similar consequences is equally video-gamey and immersion breaking. Do you really feel like the story is exactly the same if you shoot a guy in the head as opposed to trying to save him and watching someone else shoot him in the head? "Oh he's still dead, nothing changes." Except things went the way you wanted or they didn't turn out the way you planned. You succeeded in what you were attempting to accomplish or you failed. You have developed as a character or you have a new perspective on the character that fired the gun. None of that is meaningless as far as story-telling and character development go, and we still have two episodes left before we get to see what really rolls down the pipe.

I consider it 'a bit hollow' when your character is allowed to determine who lives and dies in every instance and you can speech skill your way out of a bad situation to make it end happily for everyone, which is the alternative offered to you in almost every RPG on the market. Yeah, you're a big powerful player, making hollow decisions that impact a universe that only bends to your will, but it's impersonal. I'd rather things happen that are outside of my control and I develop the story and my character from a unique perspective of having experienced some success and some failure while acknowledging that while some of my struggles may be in vain, I'll keep moving forward trying to have an impact on what's going on until I actually do or die trying.

@GrandHarrier: This is because you're playing The Walking Dead as a video game instead of a as an interactive story experience. And also because you choose to ignore that there are two episodes left. Did you read the first interview? "Faces of Death part 1." They explain what kind of impact you are afforded in the game. If you're just playing this to feel like a powerful character who makes all the decisions you're in the wrong zombie apocalypse.

New Vegas had issues but they were using a borrowed engine so I'm not holding them accountable for more than the story and gameplay in that one, which they knocked out of the park. The rest of their titles all 'could have been' amazing but never finished or got the polish they needed. "Co-developing" implies they're going to have help, so I'm going to have faith.

People are convoluting the conversation by making it about the writing instead of the DLC. The ending is a Deus Ex Machina, whether we like it or not. That was established the first time around. Being upset that it's still that isn't relevant to the conversation. That they added a new ending at all is a nice touch they didn't need to make but decided to do, and it's my canonical ending because I think it makes the most sense. I've seen a few people insinuating that somehow Destroy isn't genocide anymore, and I'm not sure how they're getting to that conclusion, beyond simply not playing the game and watching the ending. They're what they were before except not nearly so cryptic, and they carry more weight now that you don't have to select any of them.

They said all throughout 3, and hinted all throughout 1 and 2, that the reapers couldn't be destroyed by conventional means. I'm quite happy with a bittersweet ending where we all die but the next cycle lives in peace as a result of our shared experiences. Liara can be the hero for my game; I think she earned it.

This is an issue that's come up on a bunch of boards but I'm not seeing an active topic for it here right now so I thought I'd ask for some opinions. Are you guys mostly cool with the new simplified items in Diablo 3, or do you think it's a step backwards in the loot department? My friends seem to think I'm a bit nuts for being critical about it, but you tell me.

Diablo 3's items feel like they came out of the day 1 release for Diablo 2, for better or worse. You find a thing, and it either has the two stats you need, or you salvage it. I've been running a wizard and if it doesn't have Int or Vit on it I don't really have any reason to hang onto it. Sockets let you put even more Int or Vit into the things, if you have the gems for it, but since we don't have runes, the stats are all we can settle for. Because of the randomization your armor is just as likely to have +dex on it as +str as +3 yards to gold collection, and for as rare as the rare items are, I've only found something like 6 out of about 25 that were of any use to me at all, and that's not accounting for all the rares I crafted that had the wrong stats on them every time. Uniques (Legendaries) are uncommon enough that people have played up to 60 without running into one, and their stats are just as randomized as the rares, often with lower levels than the rest of your gear at the time you discover them.

The up-side of this system is that it allows for players to grind out better gear without having to jump through hoops trading with friends to find the resistances and skill bonuses they need to compete in higher difficulties. The down-side of this system is that the loot is totally uninteresting and I have no desire to farm for, auction off, or purchase any of it. Half of the fun of the loot system in Diablo 2 was just how ridiculously random it was. You had modifiers that gave you %chance to stun on hit, bonus damage to undead, bonus damage to demons, knockback, mana steal, life leach (which is sort of in the game), element absorb, skill bonuses (which I personally enjoyed immensely), chance of nova on hit, chance of charged bolts on hit, and chance to open wounds. You had crazy pieces of unique loot and set items that set you up to be immune to fire, learn skills from other classes, or even transform you into a vampire. You had gems, jewels, runes, and charms you could grind for, and crazy recipes with the horadric cube that allowed you to spend gems to socket items that didn't have sockets in them or turn regular items into magical ones with specific properties. In Diablo 2 even the non-magical items served a purpose, whereas in Diablo 3 you can sell them for something like 8 gold a pop? And that's all you can do with them?

Am I out of my mind? I've got friends sitting at 60 farming loot right now, and I can't possibly imagine what's even remotely exciting about that. You *really* want 10 more strength on an amulet? I mean, is that really what it boils down to? There are no interesting or unique properties, no final-fantasy level crazy game-altering late game items to dig up. You're choosing between some amulet with +90 int +112 vit and something with +125 int +70 vit while desperately grinding to find something with +120ish +120ish so that you can get through inferno... so you can farm inferno? The end game of Diablo has always been the gear grind, and I'm not seeing any allure to it now. Did I miss an announcement somewhere where Blizzard said they were going to flood the auction house with better items or something? Or release some patch with new content? I'm not exactly looking to buy an expansion to get access to items Diablo 2 has had for 7-8 years, I just want this loot mechanic to feel less like a total chore and more like a treasure hunt.

@Xeirus:I don't think anybody in here is talking about Diablo 3 in 2022. I think we're all talking about Diablo 3 on release. You know, like, when a person might consider purchasing the game. I think most people aren't willing to put down $60+ in the hopes that the game will end up better in a trilliondy updates, and there's no guarantee Diablo 3 will have the same support as 2. Business models have changed dramatically.

@gamefreak9 said:

Thank you for demonstrating you haven't even looked into the mechanics... there are no rune drops, you have them all and they are interchangeable. No I love experimenting but I don't want to have to play 100 hours just to cap my character and find out if the experiment worked. D3 actually rewards experimentation, I think your framing things in a weird way... making a system that forces you to replay the same character through the same segment is called PUNISHMENT not reward. Its random rolls within the category of item you wish... so the chance of finding an item that you want is proportionately MUCH higher than in D2 so yes EASILY much less luck than D2.

Actually the gear DOES make a massive difference I don't recall being able to turn a sorceress into a tank(unless maybe ff8 or some job style ones). I don't remember FF ever offering the such fundamental changes in spells which the rune system offers. There are less ways of varying your character but this has been counteracted by the fact that the others have a MUCH larger impact.

Before you reply plz look at the link I posted on page 1 maybe you can understand why your wrong without being stubborn then. If you love experimenting, this is the game to play... and if you can't see that then your not looking closely... I call having to play 20-30 hours to get whirlwind and find out that I don't like it a HIGH barrier to experimentation.

I looked at the link, my bad about the drops, you're right they're all unlocked at predetermined levels, meaning you don't even have a chance at having any randomness to the skills. My bad for not understanding how they work. This, unfortunately, also plays into my 'everybody sounds exactly the same' hand. I also didn't say gear didn't make a big difference, I just said gear makes all the difference, and if runes aren't gear, your comment is not applicable. A higher likelyhood of getting the items that you want is nice, but like anything involving chance it's a give-and-take system. You felt more rewarded for finding super unique stuff because it was super unique, but you got more frustrated by not finding it for long periods of time because it was super unique. Personal tastes.

@gamefreak9 said:

@SonicBoyster:

Just to make it clear, at level 60 of being a witch doctor, regardless of how you played you can experiment with ALL of these spells and ALL of their variations http://eu.battle.net/d3/en/class/witch-doctor/active/.

That was how it sounded. I did have the misunderstanding of thinking the runes were randomized, which, I guess they aren't. The ability to turn your dude into whatever you want is great for some players, less interesting for others, hence the give-and-take about it on the board so far.

I just personally don't like the idea that anybody can be anything at any time, and that there's more variation but only in the sense that the gear is more random than it used to be (higher numbers for bonuses imply a higher range of possibilities hence more random). It'll feel less like an RPG and more like walking into a casino and picking the prettiest slot machine based on my personal preferences at that time.

@gamefreak9 said:

@SonicBoyster:

You have more control than EVER before from ANY rpg on how weird your character can be. Blizzard has said that even the Melee sorc can get through Hell, do your research before picking and choosing things you don't understand. The decisions are just much more rooted in your gear... and no its not as much luck as you think, in the BETA in one hour you can probably get enough blues to roll about 10 items with randomized stats, and there's a good chance that the stats you want will show up. There is actually much LESS luck in building your character than ever before, I remember in D2 I found an Ice blast + 5 staff, and for the next 40 levels nothing else dropped that would help my main skill as much so I was stuck with it for countless hours... now that's luck.

So it's not luck, it's just random rolls. Gotcha. A melee sorc could get through hell in Diablo 2 if you had the right gear too, it just wasn't a practical build. More control than in any RPG? Hello hyperbole. What do you mean, more varied gear? Obviously without having the stats or skill trees you're limited to gear, so, I guess if the gear is nuts enough you can have a lot of control but I wouldn't put it on a level higher than, say, Final Fantasy VI, where a set of gear could straight up turn you into a super imp creature, or Diablo 2 where the right gear could turn you into a werewolf barbarian. I'm pretty sure you're the one that isn't understanding the discussion here. Nobody is saying you can't create a varied character, we're just saying that it is completely gear dependent, meaning the only thing at all special about your character is whatever had the highest stats that popped off of a monster while you were playing.

Furthermore if the gear really is as varied as you claim, the odds of you finding a better rune to upgrade the one specific form of the one specific spell you want are probably pretty bad too. It's just diablo, a bunch of numbers thrown into a hat, except this time I don't get to drive the car, I have to ride along the rails.

People like you are practical, pragmatic game players. You want to be able to get everything done in one playthrough so you don't have to go back and experiment. People like me are into RPGs because they reward experimentation and encourage you to make multiple characters which all have a different gameplay experience. It's a matter of playstyle. Diablo 2 was my kind of game, Diablo 3 is yours.