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

121–128 of 128 posts

Re: Diablo

#121

Post by curiousmindz »

Panoramix wrote: post #81
carlisle_ wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a strange post to me. You can immediately see that you value soulslike as a superior genre, yet to me I see those games are just as grindy. Die to a boss a million times to learn the timings -> finally you beat it. Not that much different than ARPGs where you kill lots of stuff and die infrequently. It's just two sides of the same coin. Really these posts that call one kind of game time wasting or drug-like b…

It's the difference between spending a lot of time at the slot machine vs becoming good at chess. It's s massive difference. You don't "grind" chess, you learn from your failures and get better at it. Sure, you can get lucky sometimes if your opponent blunders but the strategy to wait for that to happen is a failing one.

The analogy with Chess does not work: I can go on YouTube to watch how a pro player beats a specific boss, then use that to massively shorten how long I need to beat that boss.

Watching a lot of grandmasters play Chess will minimally help me beat a Chess AI that was better than me (excluding the beginner level).

I think that someone could have fun playing a Diablo-like RPG because they enjoy feeling powerful while they mow down a lot of enemies. And someone someone could enjoy a Soulslike game for the precision they need to apply to beat a boss.

Maybe it is somewhat similar to the difference between an arcade/fun racing game and a professional track racing game.

I wouldn't consider one to be "better" than the other. They simply have different objectives.

Re: Diablo

#122

Post by Name_Chawps »

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…

The gameplay was fun to me when I was literally 5 years old and playing my first ever computer game. I can't understand how an adult would find the Diablo games fun. The atmosphere and art and whatnot are great, though.

Re: Diablo

#124

Post by aflag »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #123
aflag wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rolling dice is doing something too.

seems purposefully pedantic or ignorant to fail to see the difference here imo

Maybe I just don't see the point. They are different in the sense that the actions are different. But they are the same in the sense that they are both useless activities you do for fun. Some people can have more fun playing diablo than they would ever have playing a dark souls game. I'd even dare to say that more people prefer diablo over dark souls by the sole fact that diablo is the more popular game.

Anyway, my point is that they can look different in the surface, but they are not truly very different. They are just a pastime.

Re: Diablo

#125

Post by thefz »

carlisle_ wrote: post #29
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…

This is a strange post to me. You can immediately see that you value soulslike as a superior genre, yet to me I see those games are just as grindy. Die to a boss a million times to learn the timings -> finally you beat it. Not that much different than ARPGs where you kill lots of stuff and die infrequently. It's just two sides of the same coin. Really these posts that call one kind of game time wasting or drug-like b…

> You can immediately see that you value soulslike as a superior genre, yet to me I see those games are just as grindy. Die to a boss a million times to learn the timings -> finally you beat it.

Elden ring is so grindy that it's almost worse than any ARPG. And the game is full with artificially deadly things that should not be there, just to keep up its own meme "lol game hard, player dead". It's comically bad in many aspects.

Re: Diablo

#126

Post by spywaregorilla »

aflag wrote: post #124
spywaregorilla wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

seems purposefully pedantic or ignorant to fail to see the difference here imo

Maybe I just don't see the point. They are different in the sense that the actions are different. But they are the same in the sense that they are both useless activities you do for fun. Some people can have more fun playing diablo than they would ever have playing a dark souls game. I'd even dare to say that more people prefer diablo over dark souls by the sole fact that diablo is the more popular game. Anyway, my p…

Sure, in the sense that eating a new cuisine or a favored dish and eating a block of tasteless protein is "just eating". Some folks are eager to say "whatever makes you happy" to which the extreme counterexample is why not just get strung out on heroin.

To each their own, but it strikes me as a squandered opportunity.

Re: Diablo

#127

Post by aflag »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #126
aflag wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I just don't see the point. They are different in the sense that the actions are different. But they are the same in the sense that they are both useless activities you do for fun. Some people can have more fun playing diablo than they would ever have playing a dark souls game. I'd even dare to say that more people prefer diablo over dark souls by the sole fact that diablo is the more popular game. Anyway, my p…

Sure, in the sense that eating a new cuisine or a favored dish and eating a block of tasteless protein is "just eating". Some folks are eager to say "whatever makes you happy" to which the extreme counterexample is why not just get strung out on heroin. To each their own, but it strikes me as a squandered opportunity.

That comparison is absurd. We need to eat. The only reason to eat tasteless protein is because you have to. No one needs to play video games. Unless they have some addiction problem, people play video games for fun. And people have a lot of fun with diablo. Given the user base, I'd say that more people have fun with diablo than with dark souls game. Dark souls is a pretty niche game. Elden ring sort of the odd one out of the franchise and, even then, it was not as popular as easier games.

Rolling dice is obviously a reduction of the Diablo gameplay. Just because you don't like the mechanic, doesn't mean other people don't find it better than a skill based game. The skill in question is pressing a button quickly when something happens on a screen. Which is the only real challange of any dark souls game. Both are fine distractions. But it's very obvious that one is not objectively superior to the other in any way.

Re: Diablo

#128

Post by spywaregorilla »

aflag wrote: post #127
spywaregorilla wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, in the sense that eating a new cuisine or a favored dish and eating a block of tasteless protein is "just eating". Some folks are eager to say "whatever makes you happy" to which the extreme counterexample is why not just get strung out on heroin. To each their own, but it strikes me as a squandered opportunity.

That comparison is absurd. We need to eat. The only reason to eat tasteless protein is because you have to. No one needs to play video games. Unless they have some addiction problem, people play video games for fun. And people have a lot of fun with diablo. Given the user base, I'd say that more people have fun with diablo than with dark souls game. Dark souls is a pretty niche game. Elden ring sort of the odd one ou…

No one needs to play video games but people ultimately do need to pass time in many cases. Doing something that challenges you or engages with an artist's ideas is rewarding. You need to eat. You don't need to eat with the intention to experience the food.

Again, I don't think dark souls is the emblematic, archetypal, or only direction for artistic video game design by any means. But it's at least something. From the lens of challenging yourself or exploring art, diablo has nothing for the majority of it's playtime in end game where you've seen everything and are just thinking about the numbers imo.

That's not an objective view, but man it sure seems underwhelming otherwise.

Post reply on HN