Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
It's probably still early enough in the process that they could ditch the "always online" stuff. Forcing a game to run online is more difficult than having it run offline. I'd also encourage people to start asking noisy questions about the sex of the different character classes (though that's a bit trickier due to the need to design character models and outfits for each possible combination) .
But, yes, it's been my experience that Blizzard can be ridiculously stubborn about pretty much everything no matter how blatantly stupid their decision is.
Eumerin wrote: It's probably still early enough in the process that they could ditch the "always online" stuff.
But they won't. Their parent company is probably expecting this to be the next "Live Service" platform.
Eumerin wrote: I'd also encourage people to start asking noisy questions about the sex of the different character classes (though that's a bit trickier due to the need to design character models and outfits for each possible combination).
Why noisy questions?
I mean, it's either:
1. Like Diablo 3, and you can choose either male or female for the class. 2. Like Diablo 2, in that it's set beforehand as the characters actually have a specific reason for being like that.
And neither is wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/03 07:51:34
Voss wrote: Less customization for the player is always wrong.
Not always, it depends entirely on concept.
Consider comparing Grim Dawn and Diablo 2. In Grim Dawn you choose your gender and all the armour is universal. The result is that there is actually very little gender difference and visual difference in the characters. There is some, don't get me wrong; however when you compare it to the set designs for Diablo 2 there's a world of differences.
Fixed gender/character types can mean that you can achieve a better level of individual style and variation of that style because the character model is a single fixed entity. The more you require high variety the more complex it becomes to design that same level of variety. It's one reason why in many "open choice" 3D games you can see armour plating clipping through other bits of it because they have a custom base model and then the armour is simply scaled to fit; which results in some fitting and some not - hence why it can clip all over the place.
Then lets compare something like Skyrim - totally freefrom everything; the ultimiate level of choice. To something like Witcher series games where many choices are fixed (appearance, gender, the general direction of your choices etc...). Again neither is better than the other for having more choice nor less. They are simply different takes on the RPG system.
As for the online/offline problem - the main issue is that if it gets built into the core game then it can be so integral to the code that they'd have to start from the ground up to rebuild it. I don't begrudge them, Blizzard has had good luck with the mmo model in WOW and the online system is something they are clearly interested in. It's purely my own selfish desires to want to play the game offline so that I can enjoy it in my way. Sadly it sounds like they are building it from the ground up as a team game. It's a shame that they've not used a system like Borderlands where the game can run perfectly fine offline; and even D3 you could solo the game without any friends; the console version even runs offline too.
So its not impossible - Bliz could do it - Sadly I worry that the management doesn't want it to go that direction and the fans won't make enough actual complaining noise about it to force GW's hand. Heck technically their whole current D3 fanbase and customer base are already happy with online all the time (or at least happy enough to tolerate it).
Voss wrote: Less customization for the player is always wrong.
Not always, it depends entirely on concept.
Consider comparing Grim Dawn and Diablo 2. In Grim Dawn you choose your gender and all the armour is universal. The result is that there is actually very little gender difference and visual difference in the characters. There is some, don't get me wrong; however when you compare it to the set designs for Diablo 2 there's a world of differences.
Fixed gender/character types can mean that you can achieve a better level of individual style and variation of that style because the character model is a single fixed entity. The more you require high variety the more complex it becomes to design that same level of variety. It's one reason why in many "open choice" 3D games you can see armour plating clipping through other bits of it because they have a custom base model and then the armour is simply scaled to fit; which results in some fitting and some not - hence why it can clip all over the place.
Then lets compare something like Skyrim - totally freefrom everything; the ultimiate level of choice. To something like Witcher series games where many choices are fixed (appearance, gender, the general direction of your choices etc...). Again neither is better than the other for having more choice nor less. They are simply different takes on the RPG system.
I simply don't agree. It's one of the main reasons I don't like the Witcher series- the lack of customization is a deal breaker.
Though admittedly so is the fact that the main characters are awful people and I can't stand them.
If its some indie studio and they simply can't afford customization, I can get that. Art and animation costs money (as does voice acting, if they go that way). But that doesn't apply to Blizz- they can afford the time and the money.
Eumerin wrote: It's probably still early enough in the process that they could ditch the "always online" stuff. Forcing a game to run online is more difficult than having it run offline. I'd also encourage people to start asking noisy questions about the sex of the different character classes (though that's a bit trickier due to the need to design character models and outfits for each possible combination) .
But, yes, it's been my experience that Blizzard can be ridiculously stubborn about pretty much everything no matter how blatantly stupid their decision is.
There is no reason to do that. Seriously, if Blizz wants barbarians to only be male, that's fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: Less customization for the player is always wrong.
Not entirely. Sometimes we're playing through a story designed to work a specific way. There are thousands of games that allow deep character customization, including sex and aesthetics. No need for every single game to have it.
Voss wrote: Less customization for the player is always wrong.
Not always, it depends entirely on concept.
Consider comparing Grim Dawn and Diablo 2. In Grim Dawn you choose your gender and all the armour is universal. The result is that there is actually very little gender difference and visual difference in the characters. There is some, don't get me wrong; however when you compare it to the set designs for Diablo 2 there's a world of differences.
Fixed gender/character types can mean that you can achieve a better level of individual style and variation of that style because the character model is a single fixed entity. The more you require high variety the more complex it becomes to design that same level of variety. It's one reason why in many "open choice" 3D games you can see armour plating clipping through other bits of it because they have a custom base model and then the armour is simply scaled to fit; which results in some fitting and some not - hence why it can clip all over the place.
Then lets compare something like Skyrim - totally freefrom everything; the ultimiate level of choice. To something like Witcher series games where many choices are fixed (appearance, gender, the general direction of your choices etc...). Again neither is better than the other for having more choice nor less. They are simply different takes on the RPG system.
As for the online/offline problem - the main issue is that if it gets built into the core game then it can be so integral to the code that they'd have to start from the ground up to rebuild it. I don't begrudge them, Blizzard has had good luck with the mmo model in WOW and the online system is something they are clearly interested in. It's purely my own selfish desires to want to play the game offline so that I can enjoy it in my way. Sadly it sounds like they are building it from the ground up as a team game. It's a shame that they've not used a system like Borderlands where the game can run perfectly fine offline; and even D3 you could solo the game without any friends; the console version even runs offline too.
So its not impossible - Bliz could do it - Sadly I worry that the management doesn't want it to go that direction and the fans won't make enough actual complaining noise about it to force GW's hand. Heck technically their whole current D3 fanbase and customer base are already happy with online all the time (or at least happy enough to tolerate it).
One of the things that made D3 visually bland was how little difference there was in armor styles. All the armor looked like body paint, even stretching with the characters legs and arms as they moved. It was pretty ugly.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/11/03 17:54:05
Yep and that's often what you get when you have a game where you want high diversity of models whilst having a vast wealth of armour and equipment at the same time. Esp when you've a wide range of sizes - the Grim Dawn male and female basically look identical in size (male is a tiny bit bulkier but not by a huge amount).
If D3 Goes back to more mono-style classes then at least those classes can have more diverse and detailed armour with less of the stretching going on.
Not sure if this has been said but for some reason I feel like blizzard is much like jrpg's in the fact they make super amazing trailers. The actual game though doesn't always live up to expectations esp. these days.
The theme is a step in the right direction and I don't mind gender choice or no gender choice. I don't like always online but it's not something huge.
My gripes being I generally find blizzard games to be over-competitive and generally not as interesting as I wish they were and the other is just how hard they clamped down on the honk kong protester. I mean even if they had given him a warning not to say political stuff I might've been ok but they got rid of the 2 announcers and were fairly hard on the hearthstone champion. Blizzard I get you like Chinese money but you don't have to let them go in full throttle with no lube. Jesus have some backbone.
Looks and sounds decent enough. Diablo 3 was a bit cartoony looking. Not sure if the gaming sites would just eat a turd sandwich and like it if a AAA game company told them to though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/04 00:23:45
Well some AAA's eat a turd sandwich when China tells them to, so the knock on effect probably means you're right.
I can't wait to walk around D4's persistent online world and find everything's already been killed in the non-instanced areas by players 30 levels higher than me. That's the real Diablo experience I crave.
Voss wrote: Less customization for the player is always wrong.
Because... ?
Because there's...less... for the players. This isn't a difficult concept.
RPGs, even story-light action RPGs like Diablo, have several components. Story, interaction, combat, exploration, and customization. Part of the appeal of these titles is always going to be dressing up the little doll with how you want/envision them to look. In a game series, going from more customization than the previous title (D2->D3) to less customization in the followup title (D3->D4) is inevitably going to feel like cutting content.
If individual people don't personally care about that aspect, that's fine. But the wider reception is going to be that they put something that people liked on the chopping block.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And what if the developers have a specific story to tell with those characters?
Not sure how they can't tell a story with my characters, since it's an RPG. Sorta.
I mean, it's 2019. I'm not sure why I can't toggle out a gender and some skin tones and maybe some hairstyles.
I guess by "customization" they mean "choosing which loot to keep", because why not. It's the Chinese grinders and gold-sellers they want to attract, not me.
Perhaps Blizz has a specific story for that Barbarian, or that Druid. Diablo characters have had specific storylines in the past (ie. the Warrior from D1 was the Dark Wanderer in D2). Sometimes customising your character is appropriate for the story being told or the game at hand.
If possible let's leave the politics out of this thread on the HK stuff and just stick to discussing the game, what we think they might do with it and what we already know.
That aside, I am really excited to see that we are finally getting to explore some of the other lands in the game. I am really hopeful that we will get to go to Skovos! It looks like we might be starting in Scotsglen too, which would be amazing.
There are so many other locations, anyone have any favorites they hope to see?
Perhaps Blizz has a specific story for that Barbarian, or that Druid. Diablo characters have had specific storylines in the past (ie. the Warrior from D1 was the Dark Wanderer in D2). Sometimes customising your character is appropriate for the story being told or the game at hand.
They've usually done stories for characters outside of the one you're playing.
Either way, I can go on and on about how customizable characters (at least cosmetically) should be far more common in video games- but it's not like Blizzard is getting my money either way.
I mean, say what you want but it's hard to complain about representation in video games when you can... create your own character that looks the way you want.
It might be the more you customize something the less distinct a company can make a character. Maybe not since in skyrim there's a character where it's a nord with a horned helmet and we all know that's the skyrim character even though it allows options but what's gonna be the title character for each. That said even if we do get customization like in skyrim it might not matter when they're all covered head to toe in armor though. I'm sure we all know the joke of spending lots of time to customize a character for it to not matter when all the details get covered up anyway.
It's like when people like open world until they realize it lacks direction and gets boring or when a story has branching choices only to have so many different results from it making the game much harder to create. After 3 games rpg's with a system that makes your choices matter usually kinda doesn't because there's too much to account for.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/04 02:29:16
flamingkillamajig wrote: After 3 games rpg's with a system that makes your choices matter usually kinda doesn't because there's too much to account for.
Well, you can still pick a color at the end of the third game when they do that, right?
flamingkillamajig wrote: After 3 games rpg's with a system that makes your choices matter usually kinda doesn't because there's too much to account for.
Well, you can still pick a color at the end of the third game when they do that, right?
::trollface::
It all depends on what kind of game you want. Blizzard games have always been very railroady. That's why I like them. It might be that things like the witcher or other rpgs have more of what you want from a game.
You don't really make "choices" in Diablo games, you mostly just repeatedly kill things until loot pops out of them.
Which isn't a criticism, mind you. It's cathartic. One of the only game series Blizzard's made that's consistently above average in quality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/04 02:41:58
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
It all depends on what kind of game you want. Blizzard games have always been very railroady. That's why I like them. It might be that things like the witcher or other rpgs have more of what you want from a game.
Diablo 3 was great, as shocking as that may be to hear. I enjoyed it.
I'm not asking to have full narrative control over my character, but at least let me swap some things around and choose an alternate model for male or female. They could do the latter in D3, not sure why it's too much for D4.
And to assume "you can't have a good story with custom characters" is just ignoring some of the best RPG's out there. I can think of a pair of Star Wars games, some Dragon Age games, and even 2 MMORPG's that pulled that off.
It all depends on what kind of game you want. Blizzard games have always been very railroady. That's why I like them. It might be that things like the witcher or other rpgs have more of what you want from a game.
Diablo 3 was great, as shocking as that may be to hear. I enjoyed it.
I'm not asking to have full narrative control over my character, but at least let me swap some things around and choose an alternate model for male or female. They could do the latter in D3, not sure why it's too much for D4.
And to assume "you can't have a good story with custom characters" is just ignoring some of the best RPG's out there. I can think of a pair of Star Wars games, some Dragon Age games, and even 2 MMORPG's that pulled that off.
I also enjoyed D3. I just do not count it as a diablo game.
Also, I'd like to take a moment to remind you that there hasn't been a confirmation yet that the genders are locked behind the character wall. We're looking at a likely post 2021 release for this game, and a ton of the games content has yet to be revealed. So you may very well get that chance.
Togusa wrote: I also enjoyed D3. I just do not count it as a diablo game.
Fun off-topic fact: I watched a guy in Korea play this game, using his account on my computer (Long story short, we worked with Korean military and they have guys that are augmented to work with the US Military, and they aren't allowed to have laptops or cell phones during the week- so I let them use my computer to play games and go on social media). Dude was playing a crusader and it was just a constant series of everything on the screen exploding into a bunch of blood and guts and fire and coins and RAKANISHU. It was glorious and surreal.
Togusa wrote: Also, I'd like to take a moment to remind you that there hasn't been a confirmation yet that the genders are locked behind the character wall. We're looking at a likely post 2021 release for this game, and a ton of the games content has yet to be revealed. So you may very well get that chance.
It's very likely these characters in the cutscenes are supporting characters around you, at the town or with your caravan, that will be along with you during the game.
I can get behind not getting to chose the character's gender in a game today if the game puts effort into making that loss of such a basic choice meaningful. Like if the Sorceress gets her own unique story opportunities and experiences, then go for it. Fixing the character in that way can open a lot of doors to make the story more personal.
If it's just "D2 was like this" and that's it, then it's just a lazy design decision chasing lazy nostalgia points.
Nostalgia for what was really kind of a worse time is the worst kind of nostalgia.
D3 didn't lose anything by having the option to pick gender. If you wanted to play only male barbarian you could. If you wanted to play only female sorcerer you could. Your choice. Frankly it made it better because we had twice the voice lines to listen to.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
LordofHats wrote: I can get behind not getting to chose the character's gender in a game today if the game puts effort into making that loss of such a basic choice meaningful. Like if the Sorceress gets her own unique story opportunities and experiences, then go for it. Fixing the character in that way can open a lot of doors to make the story more personal.
What if it's got nothing to do with that specific character, but more the background of the type of character.
For example, if they were to include a Rogue from the Sisterhood of the Sightless Eye. Or an Askari Amazon?
H.B.M.C. wrote: For example, if they were to include a Rogue from the Sisterhood of the Sightless Eye. Or an Askari Amazon?
I would hope for a story about it.
If the character's character doesn't matter, then they shouldn't be gender locked because their character doesn't matter. They're just a stand in to let the player be cool, in which case the player should be empowered to make that character their own.
