DiabloFans

Quote from "Equinox" »

I met some hunters like that, and while they are lazy and, in my opinion, pretty lame, they usually still kill because they want to feel better about themselves, not because they enjoy seeing an animal in colvusions.

It's sort of like how you enjoy killing people in video games, you don't enjoy their suffering (since they don't suffer), you are enjoying the process.

Yeah... I can understand the survival side, but we're in an age where that necessity is past. It is still necessary for other parts of the world, but in "civilized" culture I think we should let the animals in the wild be.

Any type of animal cruelty is just sad. Even in games there is still a moral attachment for me - but I suppose that's why I'm not a fan of FPS games that involve humans prominently.

Ignorance is a politician's number one ally. They focus on demographics that they know they can influence. If people were smart, they wouldn't count on what somebody says, they look at what they've done.

Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.

It is up to you as an individual to see past the smoke and mirrors that politicians employ. If you don't, you're part of the problem. You may not want to be, and it may not even pass your thoughts. The fact of the matter, though, is that if you're making uninformed decisions when you vote, it hurts everybody.

Quote from "Magistrate" »

I really have no idea what you're talking about. I want to make my archaic, wizened wizard to blast Diablo back to the Abyss. I'd never want to be old and decrepit-looking like that in real life. Your argument makes no sense.

I'm assuming this comment was towards psyonide?

Quote from "psyonide-b3k" »

Alright... this isn't going on Blizz's roadmap anyways so it's just finger practice...

Most of us would like to port ourselves into the game, including our rich resume and the tattoos and piercings we always thought about having if it wasn't for our moms prohibiting us from making the same mistakes they did. So... we're stuck with a char that's past 20y/o and still hasn't spawned five babies, twice divorced, owes money to every NPC in town and milks cows for a handful of fisstech.
You are probably thinking- most of us are really into sex change ops as well, and are slutty to boot, which is why we digg the female chars but dislike their armor art for being too... protective. And I agree.

For you guys who're saying *let's have the option and whoever doesn't like it just don't use it* here's what I think:
If there was one game to bind them, the one game that's supposed to mimic life and offer the ultimate "escapism"- instead of us having to do with hundreds of different games offering different experiences- than of course all of these customization options would be sweet, if not essential.
But I can think of a game that already tries to be it- the SIMS.

If I had SIMS in my Diablo I would be as disappointed as some other Diablo fans be had they played their Diablo pink hued or anime flavored.

I'm a big fan of different experiences and new perspectives provided by unique games. Adding a now-mundane feature as that distracts, IMO, from the game.
In addition game devs cannot include every feature from every game into one uber-game, at least not in one lifetime, example for long dev time: Diablo3. To me it's more urgent to have summoning Materias than mere bling, so let's focus on that shall we?

I'd have been happier to listen to your perspective if you didn't group most of us in the "port yourself into the game" vision that you're preaching.

In fact I don't really no anybody, except pehaps you, that would like to port themselves in the game. I wouldn't like to do that at all - what I would like is to have diversification between characters. Tattoos and piercings are 2 options out of a myriad of options. The reasoning behind your perspective is ridiculous, in my opinion.

Everything that you said has little to zero usefulness to this thread. This departure from what we're asking pretty much confirms that you read the first post and didn't bother to read the discussion.

I'll certainly help when I'm not posting at 1 in the morning. Since I didn't see this post until now I figured I'd mention that I'll help with the research.

I think a good way to start, also, is listening to the audio-lore on the Diablo 3 main site. I recall there being scraps of information that you may find valuable. I will listen through it again as well and hopefully I will have some more information for you.

In the meantime...
I think this is the thread that you seek.

Quote from "Daemaro" »

When I mentioned healing I meant very small amount of healing. Like a pallys holy bolt, or the holy bolts from Fist of the Heavens.

Think more of them as a martial arts user.

Yeah, definitely. There are some great adaptations of monks for various different skill-trees. I was merely commenting on how, if there was a monk, it wouldn't take on the form of a class-healer.

Martial arts would be interesting to see in this hack-and-slash. THe Assassin MA tree was gimped in Diablo 2 and it would be great to see it make a legit comeback. I found it ironic that the best melee sins you could make utilizes a move that isn't even their own - whirlwind.

<3 to the ghost ww sins.

Quote from "Equinox" »

The act of killing the animal or the act of hunting after it and defeating it, maybe?

I wish this were the case.... and then you see hunters with scopes that completely kill the game. Some people like to hunt because they like killing.

I don't think "defeat" is a really good descriptor because it implies a fight =/

These hunters aren't looking for a fight - they're looking to kill.

(This is a generalization of course. Some people have legit reasons for doing what they do - I can't get behind any of the reasons unless it's for population control [which even that is a travesty])

I could see a monk class being justified for Diablo 3. Much of the genre has been formulated around the whole gothic architecture that defined pre-modern churches. Not to mention Diablo 1 was within the catacombs of the church... so there's definitely a viable backstory for such a class.

A healing class in Diablo would be iffy, though. I don't know how they'd be able to balance the classes if there was a class that could heal party members when they already have the health globe mechanics in place. I can see minimal healing spells at best.... but I'm thinking Blizzard will go for damage dealing classes that mesh well with their health globes and potions.

I could be wrong, of course

Quote from name="Lord Petrov" »

Although it would be cool, as it was in Fallout 3, I don't really see a point. You don't really look at the face in Diablo. unless the character pic would remain in one of the screens (attribute-screen or something), then it would be allowed.

You'll be seeing it a lot more in Diablo 3 though! Well, at least from what we have seen thus far. It comes up during dialogue, and there isn't a set paper-doll yet for the inventory so we have yet to see whether or not this current format will stay.

Also you'll be able to zoom, so you can get a close-up whenever you want.

It can be arbitrary, of course, if people take that stuff for granted. Sometimes people just want to play the game and remain detached from the hero. That's cool too I suppose.

I'd personally like customization that is more noticeable than faces, but I digress

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

You don't equip loot "because it looks cool" but because its stats have a direct effect on how (well) you play the game. If you can't even make the distinction between loot and facegen then something is wrong with you.

No, I'm simply remarking upon the diction used. "Dress-up" implies something you are dressing. This entails clothes, in this case it would be armor. Thus the belittling term of "dress-up" is incorrect term for what we are talking about unless we are to include the possible dye options in aforementioned posts.

Simple customization would hardly make this "decorate your barbarian" claim viable. I prefer "diversify your barbarian." It's all about perspective - try putting on another person's lens.

I'd appreciate if you kept your bait to yourself, thanks.

Quote from "psyonide-b3k" »

In my opinion there are some contributions made by such options however consider:
It does not contribute to game play because it changes nothing in it.
It does not contribute to re playability for the changes are cosmetic and esoteric at that.
It does not contribute to the atmosphere in the game for the above reason.

It continues to aggravate me that people believe that this does nothing for a game's play. If this facet does not contribute to you then so be it. However, any aspect of a game that changes the player-character dynamic is something that contributes to gameplay however subtle this dynamic may be. As such, don't use infinites in a sentence unless it is, indeed, infinite.

It can contribute to replayability if you construct your characters to reflect their builds. If you don't do this, that's great. Don't keep writing it off just because you see no value of it.

If you believe something different, that's wonderful. The biggest thing to consider is how much it affects the gameplay. I think what you are arguing is that it provides minimal difference to your experience.

The only objection I have regarding this is that it makes what should be a bad ass game into a dress up and decorate your warrior Barbi game. No offense meant... these are great high quality dolls and I had lots of fun discoveries with them, and have lost many of jobs for my passion, but I feel it's whole different game now and would not want to be confused.

Wait... dress up? For aesthetic customization other than armor? Right now the biggest customization for characters IS the loot, and it seems that that would be what one would consider as "dress-up". Furthermore, customization is not a required part of the game. If you do not like diversified characters then that's great. You can go ahead and create a default character.


Anyways, the overall point is to not write off other opinions just because they don't coincide with yours. I can understand why these facets have no apparent affect on you as a gamer. But frankly, I'm not really worried about it. When I play a next-gen game I like to have many options that change my gaming experience. For me, customization (not limited to facial features) should be welcomed in light of this fact.

A game should not limit its optional features. It's just that - an option. I think it can be agreed upon that such systems would not be difficult to implement and it allows a wider, more diverse pool of possible heros in the long run.

Cheers.

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

Anyways, i'm going to repost and try to guess which inappropriate language i have to keep out.



[quote name='Doppelganger']Please, "uncharted territory". We're talking about cosmetic "change your face", how original and boundary breaking. And for what purpose? To expand the genre? You're suggestions are as meaningless regarding the actual evolution of a genre or games in general as any random generic brainfart including words like "bloom".

You seem to be getting pretty mad now. Brush up on the common definition of evolution and perhaps you will come to understand how all of these suggestions evolve the genre. Your tunnel vision leaves you as blind as ever.

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

We're talking cosmetics here, i'm the one telling you it won't change the game or genre in any meaningful way, you're the one telling me regarding pure cosmetics as almost meaningless is "extremely narrow minded". Do you see whats wrong here? Do you?

Yes, narrow-minded. I've already provided solid evidence for you to ponder over as to why it is meaningful. I suggest you reread my posts. No need to repeat myself here.

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

Battle between using definitions correctly and logically? Exactly how does Diablo extend past the bounds of the ARPG genre? Exactly how is Diablo not a pure action hack & slash with parameters?
How can that even be considered "my own criteria"? I haven't made up a single criteria of my own, yet you regard something to be more then it is according to criteria you even fail to give me.

Reread previous posts. I'm glad to see that you keep flip-flopping your ideas on Diablo. Before you thought Diablo was unique in its genre, now you believe it's just an ARPG.

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

People are stupid? But if you wish to quote stupid people then be my guest, don't expect me to suddenly realize people are stupid though.

Great way to belittle your peers. You truly must be the center of your own universe if you take no care into understand and respect other people's observations. You are so stubborn that you can't see outside of the cage you've built for yoursef.

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

Source? Oh right, you don't have one obviously.
But anyways, what does face customization got to do with the game, and what does it have to do with the RPG genre? I hear nothing.

This was the interview with Jay Wilson and the Gameplay Trailer. I find your lack of background knowledge of this game disturbing in light of your passionate trail you've blazed in this quest to prove your right.

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

Exactly what concept are you having trouble with? You understand the concept of "LARPing", yes? I assume you understand the concept of "virtual", yes? Maybe you fail to understand the concept of "brackets"? Or maybe you just don't have anything to stand on and need to act all confused "because my arguments aren't solid" or whatever pathetic excuse.

Well, congratulations. You mentioned every concept that has concrete meaning. You used to unrelated subjects, provided absolutely no correlation, and your excuse for it was that you used "virtually" as a means to completely sever the ties between your two clauses? This was possibly the most absurd, childish response as of yet.

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

Sarcasm? i'm getting used to it from you.

I give what I recieve. I just tend to do it in a manner of reasoning and style.

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

Yeah, lets ignore the fact you didn't attempt at explaining how this utterly unoriginal and superficial suggestion "evolves the genre" shall we.

Wow. This needs absolutely no response. If you have to ask, you will never know.

But... since I know you'll nitpick:

This is evolving the genre because it is adding in facets of customization that have henceforth been UNSEEN. Have you ever seen a game that incorporates all of my suggestions? Have you seen an ARPG that incorperates all of them? Post your sources.

Furthermore, it is evolving the "Diablo Genre" if you will. no other Diablo game has these features. These features will evolve it. Period. Consult your nearest dictionary for the definition of evolution.

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

Then don't bother, i already know how absurd it is to keep responding to you.

I just couldn't help myself when somebody is so wrong and believes themselves to be so right in their unbelievably limited view. I'm almost compelled to show you how you are wrong in everything you say. You are equally as compelled to find things that I say that don't make sense. You have failed at this, I show you how you fail and the cycle continues.

This is an impasse.


EDIT -

I will respond to these points later as I have other more important things to do:

Its the same suggestion but then dynamic.



Are you referring to the fact you're an censored?



Firstly, i never said people should be disallowed to aesthetically customize anything. I stated the fact that i don't give care about it and that it doesn't have anything to do with roleplaying, disregarding the fact Diablo isn't even a RPG to begin with.
Secondly, exactly how is pure aesthetics as viable as diversified loot? Or do i seriously need to explain to you how loot does actually have an impact on the game, while "having a chuck norris face" doesn't?



Exactly my point. *sigh*



I don't care if anything implies sandbox, the fact is that its based on dungeon crawl. Saying that its based on "sandbox incorporating dungeon crawl", instead of the other (ie, right) way around makes you utterly irrelevant to have any meaningful debate with.



The point is not that "some aspects are combat related", the point is that "all aspects are combat related", therefor it can't ever be a roleplaying game. (or does your experience of roleplaying characters limit itself to only focusing on combat? If yes, then isn't it you having a case of tunnel vision?)

Quote from "psyonide-b3k" »

Just customize everything...
Let's have some modding of everything including, but not limited to, armor, weapon, faces, battle scars, tattoos, arrow heads, shield emblems, flags, chickens etc.

What's the point anyhow?
This isn't a mmorpg aka life replacing game. You... don't need to get attached to an avatar and your individuality is not at stake because there are two chars who look the same. You are and will always remain a unique snowflake.

Besides... it's too freaking small anyways jesus christ why???

I have several long posts that are on the points of why, but I'll recap just a few ideas that I come to when I look at the benefits.

The major argument, I see, is that people are saying that it's too small so who cares. Yes, it is small. However, it has been shown that we can zoom in. I personally really enjoy seeing diversity amongst the same class. I find it really bland to see 5 barbarians with a synchronized breathing animation. The path of this game may be linear, as some people like to beat into the ground, but how does this justify having a maximum of 8 (supposedly) genetic clones in game? I think customization should be welcomed!

It's not like there is only 1 barbarian, 1 whitch doctor, and 1 wizard in the world! I think that this argument stands up much better in single player play. I truly understand how "these heros" are the ones set in this storyline. However, when you put this in a scenario with hundreds of thousands of other people this reasnoning begins to crumble.

Having visual aesthetic differences such as decals, dyes, faces, and other customizations forges a stronger bond between player and character - even if the majority of gameplay is spent hacking and slashing through hordes of enemies. I still like to know that I had a bigger hand in this characters creation and it was made in the image that I felt best fit this particular hero.

Quote from "Daemaro" »

To me a RPG has always just been a game where you play the role of a specific character, either made by you, or just made for the game.



A lot of the most famous RPG's you play a premade character, it doesn't make them any less RPG. Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, etc etc. You PLAY the ROLE of the characters. That being said, almost all games have a RPG element. That's not really what we should be focusing on though.

The question was simply, would you like to see more customizable faces. It'd make you feel like you had some sort of hand in the creation of your character, thus helping you feel possibly closer in a RP aspect. It's easier to get engrossed in something when you helped design it.

Really who cares what it classifies as, RPG, Hacknslash, Dungeoncrawl, whatever.

If you want customization, say you want customization, if you don't want it, then just say you dont. Don't say it's impossible just because it's not a RPG.

Thank you.

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

"Action-rpg = rpg", except that its not because the definition of an "action-rpg" is an action game based on a role playing combat system (care to explain what customizable faces got to do with combat, or with anything for that matter? I guess not, obviously) typified by a heavy emphasis on real-time slaying huge numbers of enemies. "Being to lazy to quote IGN or Gamespot" is a joke because first of all you don't (and thus fail to quote jack-shit which would in any way counter-argue my points) and second of all "IGN and Gamespot etc, etc, etc," means nothing to me.
Lastly, many regard Diablo as being its own little genre, clones of it being referred to as "Diablo-clones" and the definition of it is even less defined then that of action-rpg seeing that character and story interaction is kept to a bare minimum, and its namely pretty much only slashing enemies.

The first thing I'd like to mention is that THIS GAME'S GENRE IS EVOLVING. Both yours and my definitions of anything regarding this game hold only a small platform to base assumptions from. If you don't like my suggestions you can stuff it. Your argument is lacking completely because you limit yourself to genre while I'm understanding the fact that this game is stepping into uncharted territory where it is good to suggest things to add to the game's play.

Action RPG's vary greatly in gameplay, many of which maintain the ability to customize your character. By maintaining an extremely narrow view much is lost in the grand scheme of video games. This game already employs RPG elements that extend the bounds of the said ARPG genre - as I have enumerated in previous posts. Games are not limited to the constraints of any single genre, and it seems that your views are limited because of this. I feel you are being antagonistic to an almost comical degree. If you want to use your own criteria of the game's genre that's perfectly okay. I just suggest you stop now because you're fighting a losing battle. This battle will never be won because we will never see eye to eye.

Everywhere on the internet people call Diablo an RPG. People all over [I]this[/I] forum call Diablo an RPG. Albeit it is an action RPG. If you'd like me to go through the search function and quote all of my sources feel free to ask - or better yet - do your own searching before you continue your own unfounded drivel.

Diablo I and II had minimal story interaction and it has been clearly stated that this will not be the case in Diablo III. The storyline will be much more prevalent which sets the game more firmly in RPG territory.

Thats why i included the word "virtual" in brackets in my post preceding the one you quoted, but i guess you missed that. Also, you don't have to tell me what LARPing is, tell it to the millions of gamers thinking that playing pretend in Morrowind or Oblivion is in fact cRPGing instead of (virtual, did you see what i did there?) LARPing.

Don't refer to something that has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. If you knew what it was I have no idea why you used that as a premise to your argument. Instead of putting something in brackets that has some ambiguous meaning I'd recommend saying what you mean directly. Not only will your arguments sound more solid, but it will give me something concrete to disagree with.

You tried to tell me a fancy story why customizable faces got anything to do with roleplaying.

Fancy? So reasoned concrete arguments are fancy now. Get used to it from me.

Learn2read, i said furthering meaningful customization past equipment, (ie skills/stats, like in Fable) would be awfully complex/time consuming/whatever when compared to the benefits it could have (which are next to nothing).

Excuse me? Leave juvenile bleating out of this. If you want to start devolving to battle.net talk I'd impress upon you to stop responding. I don't even know how this even has anything to do with [I]facial [/I]customization, let alone other suggestions that I mentioned. This is an aside that I feel pays little significance to the subject at hand.

I don't think so, thanks for the misplaced suggestion though.

If you insist on remaining ignorant to generally accepted concepts I, once again, recommend that you stop arguing. You will get nowhere with me because I will continue arguing on firm information. If we cannot come to an agreement on terms we will never come to an agreement on anything else.

I can almost guarantee you that the storylne will be as linear as *add in something extremely linear*, which is fine btw. The limited amount of information suggest some sidequests similar to those of D1.

And. So. What. Their ultimate destination is set upon a path that leads them all to the same places. How does this have any baring whatsoever on customization. I see people arguing that this fact somehow makes the hero static in all ways and should thus should't be allowed to change. Bull. Our heroes will not be getting the same gear, will not be making the same movements, we will generally not all be making the same decisions as other players. Simple aesthetic customizations have an equal place as diversified loot in viability for this game's genre.

You aren't changing the character. You aren't changing the background. You aren't changing the personality. Period. You can drop the "but it's a linear storyline" argument now.

No it isn't, it rests on DUNGEON CRAWL play, similar to ROGUE. Learn games please.

Dungeon Crawling is a main path of the linear quests. A sandbox implies that the character has choices amongst the dungeons. They can decide to farm areas before progressing, they can decide to trade before progressing, etc. The fact that the player has multiple options before progressing the main storyline suggests that there is [I]sandbox[/I] type gameplay, albeit a limited one. This incorporates dungeon crawling. Perhaps you are referring to sandbox gameplay where a character can choose one of multiple quest avenues. This is not what I'm referring to.

I'm not going to suggest that you learn to do anything because apparently any suggestion is lost upon your thick skull.

Those all have just a single purpose "deal with items or upgrade the player's combat abilities or issue them with combat-centric quests". Its completely combat related which obviously doesn't make it qualify as a roleplaying game, i mean, duh.

Wow, you have tunnel vision. Seriously, don't narrow in on one aspect of a game before you start spouting out statements that claim to define, or anything else for that matter. The fact that it's combat related is just as much of a qualifying factor for a roleplaying game as it does for just about any other genre. You must place the combat in the context of the game to be able to firmly justify your observations.

Anyways, I grow tired of responding to half-thought-out answers that are getting nowhere. If you insist upon replying I'll just answer with a few words to sum up my thoughts. I truly think this is a pointless argument because we're already set upon our own ideas - we are at an impasse and I'm perfectly okay with leaving it as such.

Congratulations on creating possibly the most pointless argument on suggestions that I thought would be cool additions to an evolving genre. Bravo.

Let me redirect you again - and I will keep reposting this until you realize how absurd it is to keep responding:

Quote from "Nocturne »

Anyways, these are just passing fancies rather than passionate cravings. With a next-gen game one always wants [I]everything.[/I'] I know we won't get everything, but I at least want to know that the ideas are out there, you know?