Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Diablo

filfre.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 128 posts

Re: Diablo

#91

Post by dleslie »

jerf wrote: post #70
dleslie wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like, particularly with the new Diablo 4 they could make the leveling curve on the base game last MUCH, MUCH longer and it would actually be far more enjoyable for far more people. It would piss off the endgame crowd though, because all they want to do is get to max level as fast as possible so they can start farming. They just did this, and made the game much more of a slow grind. Diablo 4's greatest flaw,…

After ~25 years of playing this sort of game, I am increasingly sympathetic to the idea that exponential-power leveling is just a busted mechanic. There's a variety of good ways to use it, but there isn't a great way. You can lean into it, like Disgaea, which just embraces the brokenness and writes them into its mechanics. You can just sort of write a standard game, but then, in the end, the solution to all problems…

> After ~25 years of playing this sort of game, I am increasingly sympathetic to the idea that exponential-power leveling is just a busted mechanic. There's a variety of good ways to use it, but there isn't a great way.

Hero stories need to have a satisfying end, and I don't think many ARPGs acknowledge that this is even possible or design to allow it to coincide with the end of the story.

I imagine an ARPG designed to _end_ characters would level-gate content in such a way that unlocking, and defeating, the final content would be a satisfying end to the character. You would certainly be encouraged to start afresh, NewGame+ style, with a new character but it would be made clear that the character at the _end_ is also _finished_. Completed. Over. Done. The hero has finished their journey.

Ie, lock the character and have them just lounging around in a hub/town for your new characters to see.

Re: Diablo

#92

Post by themagician »

dleslie wrote: post #51
themagician wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always loved this series. The problem, as I see it, is that the focus is always on tweaking the "endgame." I just find this to be silly. Once you get to the endgame it's pointless, and people basically blaze through the base game on purpose. And once you get there it really is no more than a slot machine that caters to people with serious gambling addictions. You run the same dungeons over and over again, someti…

> I feel like, particularly with the new Diablo 4 they could make the leveling curve on the base game last MUCH, MUCH longer and it would actually be far more enjoyable for far more people. It would piss off the endgame crowd though, because all they want to do is get to max level as fast as possible so they can start farming. They just did this, and made the game much more of a slow grind. Diablo 4's greatest flaw,…

It be nice if they split the game. They already have a Hardcore mode, so they could just split the ruleset. "Normal" could have things like level-gated areas, unlimited respecs, and a stronger focus on group play and HC could remain an infinite grind… which I think HC players would enjoy, since it would give them more cred and let them look down on mere casuals.

Re: Diablo

#93

Post by dleslie »

tstrimple wrote: post #76
dleslie wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like, particularly with the new Diablo 4 they could make the leveling curve on the base game last MUCH, MUCH longer and it would actually be far more enjoyable for far more people. It would piss off the endgame crowd though, because all they want to do is get to max level as fast as possible so they can start farming. They just did this, and made the game much more of a slow grind. Diablo 4's greatest flaw,…

The latest updated tried to address this somewhat. > Level scaling inside dungeons and most overworld territories has been adjusted in World Tiers III and IV. Monsters will begin to trail behind the player in Level after a certain point (up to a maximum of 5 Levels behind). This change does not affect World Bosses, Legion Events, Fields of Hatred, Helltide, or Nightmare Dungeons. Due to the nature of level scaling, i…

> What Blizzard wanted to avoid is having 4/5ths of the map no longer relevant because you're so far above the area level that you no longer get usable XP, loot or gold. In D3 there wasn't much to do at the high end other than run rifts.

Alternatively, they could have:

1. Distributed high-level dungeons across the map

2. Unlocked high-level quests across the map

They have an open world with dungeons and "caves", and an open world quest system; they could've leveraged that to get high level players to return.

Re: Diablo

#94

Post by nkjnlknlk »

aflag wrote: post #45
shultays wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the difference is grinding against a challenge and grinding against RNG

How is that material in any way?

Transferable skills. I don't die frequently to Souls or Monster Hunter bosses. I beat many of the Bloodborne bosses on the first try. Not because I'm a god gamer but because I played a LOT of Dark Souls and Monster Hunter as a kid.

Every new ARPG (or ARPG league) requires many hours of grinding regardless of skill.

Re: Diablo

#95

Post by Root_Denied »

moribvndvs wrote: post #73
atum47 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made a post the other day about diablo being a clicker game https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36328358

No joke, I just discovered Cookie Clicker a couple of weeks ago (sorry, I guess I’ve been under a rock) and it struck me that CC is a greatly distilled and simplified version of Diablo and pretty much all ARPGs. Perform some action to get resources to get a thing that will let you collect more resources that will let you get a better thing etc. A dopamine factory. The differences are just implementation details and a…

Universal Paperclips is another game like this, although one with more of a clear "ending" than something like CC or Diablo.

Re: Diablo

#96

Post by ralmidani »

I agree with the drug analogies.

I bought Diablo in 1996, I stayed up about 40 hours playing it. To the point that I started to literally hallucinate and click on things that weren’t actually there.

I downloaded the relatively new iOS Diablo game a few months ago and sank tens of hours into the game before waking up and putting an end to the madness. I’m morally opposed to “pay to win” games and wasn’t tempted to buy anything, so fortunately I escaped without financial damage (but the time I put into the grind can’t be replaced).

Granted, there are people who are more susceptible to addiction, and I appear to be one of them (thankfully, I was raised in an observant Muslim family). But that doesn’t absolve Blizzard of responsibility for what they’ve unleashed.

Re: Diablo

#97

Post by cwkoss »

ralmidani wrote: post #96

I agree with the drug analogies. I bought Diablo in 1996, I stayed up about 40 hours playing it. To the point that I started to literally hallucinate and click on things that weren’t actually there. I downloaded the relatively new iOS Diablo game a few months ago and sank tens of hours into the game before waking up and putting an end to the madness. I’m morally opposed to “pay to win” games and wasn’t tempted to buy…

typo? do you mean "pay to win"?

Re: Diablo

#98

Post by ralmidani »

cwkoss wrote: post #97
ralmidani wrote: post #96

I agree with the drug analogies. I bought Diablo in 1996, I stayed up about 40 hours playing it. To the point that I started to literally hallucinate and click on things that weren’t actually there. I downloaded the relatively new iOS Diablo game a few months ago and sank tens of hours into the game before waking up and putting an end to the madness. I’m morally opposed to “pay to win” games and wasn’t tempted to buy…

typo? do you mean "pay to win"?

Thanks! Fixed.

Re: Diablo

#99

Post by DarkNova6 »

musha68k wrote: post #18

Diablo is the original "anti-souls" game. The slot machine mechanics, the lacking of significant strategic elements and sense of hollow progression have always been key factors for my dissatisfaction with it. That said, the beautiful / dreadful / horror vibe and simplicity of the first game to this day regularly pull me in – only to ultimately dissatisfy me greatly. Each time. To me there is just "no there there" - a…

I mostly agree.

As a small-scale game-designer I sometimes ask myself: how I could create a Diablo given the right budget? But the problem is that you cannot recreate the magic of Diablo (2). There is nothing inherently magic about Diablo which sets it apart. It's all about the impeccable implementation of a simple idea. A perfect storm.

I think a combination of Diablo and Souls-like would be a fascinating endeavour. You could take the core souls-gameplay, scale up the enemy count and turn it into an isometric game. High Stakes, high reward.

Or you take a Souls-game and just make it a bit more casual/accessible. On top, Blizzard has the talent and manpower to create breathtaking environments that could shine even more in third-person.

Blizzard should go back to formula. Because their original recipe is still stuck in the 90s.

Re: Diablo

#100

Post by holografix »

The only way to play Diablo is on hardcore mode and multiplayer.

Suddenly you are walking dungeons slowly, waiting for cooldowns to refresh in a corner, planning what area spells to combo with your party, exchanging items that were dropped.

I don’t know if HC players get rewarded in any way, with special dungeons or items but they should. It forces you to appreciate and think about the game much more.

Otherwise it’s just mindless click frenzy.

Post reply on HN