ZEQ2 Lite

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Does anyone here play diablo 3 ?

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Is that one of those games that's based entirely on the character's equipment/items and faux-experience rather than player capability, reflexes, and general understanding/strategy?

Essentially, this classification falls with 99% of mmos and traditional rpgs that try and offer the illusion of growth through purely numerical/statistical means. I wish I could say nostalgic classics from the past like Diablo were different, but it still boils down to a formulatic approach as far as gameplay goes.

Explore dungeon. Kill monsters. Get loot. Shop. Upgrade. Repeat. Little to no innovation and creative thinking on the player's part -- a mindless repertoire in a sea of many.

Don't get me wrong though. It's a disappointing conflict for me. I really wanted to enjoy and play Diablo 3 with others, but my fondest memories from the past aren't enough to combat the apparent facts that my rational mind has laid out. It's difficult to enjoy something in such a superficial manner knowing full and well that true depth can never be attained.

Some may argue this mentality a first step towards cynicism, but in reality it's just a matter of striving for meaningful purpose in activities via standards of play.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

I haven't played any diablo before so I don't know anything about this game,but I'm going to give this a try ,I'm downloading it right now,the only reason I'm giving this a try is because it's made by blizzard,and they don't fail when they make games.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

That's why I play "The Legend of Zelda" series; you don't go around improving stats, there is a small amount of variety of armor and other equipment, and an increase in health.

There is no way of getting an advantage over enemies other than a tiny array of armors that varies in efficiency, a shield that either burns, gets eaten or damaged and eventually destroyed, or completely invulnerable, and a small array of swords that require either two hands or are unavailable after initial acquisition of the blade through story events.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Zeth wrote : Is that one of those games that's based entirely on the character's equipment/items and faux-experience rather than player capability, reflexes, and general understanding/strategy?

Essentially, this classification falls with 99% of mmos and traditional rpgs that try and offer the illusion of growth through purely numerical/statistical means. I wish I could say nostalgic classics from the past like Diablo were different, but it still boils down to a formulatic approach as far as gameplay goes.

Explore dungeon. Kill monsters. Get loot. Shop. Upgrade. Repeat. Little to no innovation and creative thinking on the player's part -- a mindless repertoire in a sea of many.

Don't get me wrong though. It's a disappointing conflict for me. I really wanted to enjoy and play Diablo 3 with others, but my fondest memories from the past aren't enough to combat the apparent facts that my rational mind has laid out. It's difficult to enjoy something in such a superficial manner knowing full and well that true depth can never be attained.

Some may argue this mentality a first step towards cynicism, but in reality it's just a matter of striving for meaningful purpose in activities via standards of play.

well, Diablo was always a mindless hack and slash game... and it's only purpose is to have fun from killing hundreds of enemies that's enough for me

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

The Zelda series of games are fine in respects to a non-numerical sense of growth, but there still remain a large degree of linearity and single-minded-solution thinking in their progression of gameplay.

Don't mistake me. Purpose, objective, and goals are essential components to create drive in a game; however, an ideal experience is one where skill, approach, and solutions are all player-derived (and not discretely predefined or established by statistical means).

Saturday, June 09, 2012

Do I have to say more? :p

Saturday, June 09, 2012

Zeth wrote : Is that one of those games that's based entirely on the character's equipment/items and faux-experience rather than player capability, reflexes, and general understanding/strategy?

Essentially, this classification falls with 99% of mmos and traditional rpgs that try and offer the illusion of growth through purely numerical/statistical means. I wish I could say nostalgic classics from the past like Diablo were different, but it still boils down to a formulatic approach as far as gameplay goes.

Explore dungeon. Kill monsters. Get loot. Shop. Upgrade. Repeat. Little to no innovation and creative thinking on the player's part -- a mindless repertoire in a sea of many.

Don't get me wrong though. It's a disappointing conflict for me. I really wanted to enjoy and play Diablo 3 with others, but my fondest memories from the past aren't enough to combat the apparent facts that my rational mind has laid out. It's difficult to enjoy something in such a superficial manner knowing full and well that true depth can never be attained.

Some may argue this mentality a first step towards cynicism, but in reality it's just a matter of striving for meaningful purpose in activities via standards of play.

And what do you think about Doom 1 & 2? I know this is off topic, I just like dthe way you've analyzed the diablo series. Would love to hear your collection of unsupported data about Doom 3 too

Saturday, June 09, 2012

I played all diablo well tried all vacuums I dislike it even more then the older megaman game for psx!

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Laguna|DaGGeR wrote : I played all diablo well tried all vacuums I dislike it even more then the older megaman game for psx!

hay, megaman was fun!

Sunday, June 10, 2012

divinemaniac wrote :

Laguna|DaGGeR wrote : I played all diablo well tried all vacuums I dislike it even more then the older megaman game for psx!

hay, megaman was fun!

nope super final boss zero/megaman was unbeatable nearly!

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Play Inferno Mode in Diablo 3, then tell me what's harder. I've done all Megaman games (except for Battle Network cause it's ill-advised) and none of them were actually hard.

Monday, June 11, 2012

Play Inferno Mode in Diablo 3, then tell me what's harder. I've done all Megaman games (except for Battle Network cause it's ill-advised) and none of them were actually hard.

Raising numbers != Difficulty.

True difficulty comes from challenging the player by forcing him/her to improve their approach or playstyle in a divergent manner. Simply scaling damage/health (on part of the player or enemy) or otherwise adjusting variable factors of a creature to create an illusion of challenge is NOT what difficulty is. If they wanted true difficulty, monsters would have EXACTLY the same numbers throughout all modes. The difference would be their AI -- how they respond and interact with the player, each other, and the environment.

Monday, June 11, 2012

Zeth wrote :

Play Inferno Mode in Diablo 3, then tell me what's harder. I've done all Megaman games (except for Battle Network cause it's ill-advised) and none of them were actually hard.

Raising numbers != Difficulty.

True difficulty comes from challenging the player by forcing him/her to improve their approach or playstyle in a divergent manner. Simply scaling damage/health (on part of the player or enemy) or otherwise adjusting variable factors of a creature to create an illusion of challenge is NOT what difficulty is. If they wanted true difficulty, monsters would have EXACTLY the same numbers throughout all modes. The difference would be their AI -- how they respond and interact with the player, each other, and the environment.

1. It's a RPG game, if you've reached the max level which is level 60 and have level 60 items you can just one hit every boss in Normal difficulty, same thing happens if you play Nightmare Difficulty.
2. If you've actually played the game on Inferno difficulty, you should've already noticed the AI responds to everything you do. Also written on the Diablo wiki:

Development:

The Inferno difficulty was revealed at Gamescom, 2011. Since then, the new difficulty level has gone through some changes. Here's what was revealed about Inferno:

-Items and Runes specific to that difficulty, with specific looks/graphics.
-Highest level of difficulty in the game.
-mlvl of 61 across the entire difficulty.
-More aggressive monster behavior with modified AI, and possibly exclusive boss modifiers (or a higher chance of rolling specific [nasty] modifiers) for Inferno.

The above text is old but shows some explanation to this, a lot has changed though.

If everything has the same value on every difficulty, then you could just one hit everything without any problems at all.
Again, it's a RPG game and not a normal whatever game you might mention.
And yes, you have to change your playstyle in Inferno Difficulty no matter what.

Monday, June 11, 2012

well if you guys love difficulty play RTS like aoe3 or c&c series or empire earth series

Monday, June 11, 2012

1. It's a RPG game, if you've reached the max level which is level 60 and have level 60 items you can just one hit every boss in Normal difficulty, same thing happens if you play Nightmare Difficulty.

The problem here is your misconception about what exactly "defines" an RPG. You consider it to be something that's character-progressed and strictly numerically driven. While this may be true for traditional (and certainly JRPGS), it is not an exclusion to the genre itself. You can certainly have a robust, story-driven, challenging role-playing game without having in a modicum of statistical drive or levels.

I think the issue here is that you are trying to identify specific distinguishing terms in a very discrete manner. Anyone can jump into the code or database and flip a few numbers around to create a sense of power/impact by simply maxing out a particular statistic or item attribute. This is simply pseudo-progression/difficulty. Whether you enjoy this false sense of growth or not is moot -- any game design practitioner can tell you that it is a poor alternative to PROPER design where-in TANGIBLE and cross-game TRANSFERABLE growth comes from progress of attained player skill.

This is the very fabric of how game archetypes are defined (not just video games) and wherein skill-sets and strategy develop regardless of specifics of play.

2. If you've actually played the game on Inferno difficulty, you should've already noticed the AI responds to everything you do. Also written on the Diablo wiki:

I played the game briefly and deduced it's design flow head-to-toe in a matter of minutes -- primarily because it follows patterns of all dungeon crawler types. That said, I am quite aware that enemies develop additional skills and respond in different ways. The point is that this aspect is entirely overshadowed by the fact that the core of the game is STILL item/number driven.

In an ideal scenario, if I remove all of my equipment and have no "levels", I should STILL be able to defeat any enemy in any game using pure strategy and ingenuity from applying a creative understanding of the inner mechanics at play (without repetition). This is true in absolutely any game wherein the mechanics are strictly governed by player actions/approach and not chance or number checks.

Although sometimes requiring practice and mastery, this notion should ALWAYS be possible if your game follows the creeds of game functionality that have defined what a game is since the days of SNES, NES, and beyond. It is the very foundation of play in Fighter, Turn-based/Realtime Strategy, Action, Platformer, Puzzle, and virtually any product in existence that does not dilute itself -- mocking the player's intelligence by simulating growth via statistics of some kind.

Recent example citation. Portal 2 bridges from start to finish without an ounce of faux progression or difficulty. It does this while challenging the player (improving their capability) as well as presenting a unique story. This isn't some magical exception. It's honestly a matter of how games were before mainstream developers began to adopt ever-increasing figures as a means to passively entertain players instead of coming up with unique and innovative gameplay concepts.

Monday, June 11, 2012

Zeth wrote :

1. It's a RPG game, if you've reached the max level which is level 60 and have level 60 items you can just one hit every boss in Normal difficulty, same thing happens if you play Nightmare Difficulty.

The problem here is your misconception about what exactly "defines" an RPG. You consider it to be something that's character-progressed and strictly numerically driven. While this may be true for .....

such a huge comment

Monday, June 11, 2012

I could only understand 20% of what you said Zeth. :v

too long; didn't read version would be better.

Monday, June 11, 2012

Monday, June 11, 2012

too long; didn't read version would be better.

That WAS the too long didn't read version.

My normal debate posts are 8-10 times larger than that.
Be thankful I condensed it for you.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

*laughing out loud*

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Zeth wrote :

too long; didn't read version would be better.

That WAS the too long didn't read version.

My normal debate posts are 8-10 times larger than that.
Be thankful I condensed it for you.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Zeth wrote :

too long; didn't read version would be better.

That WAS the too long didn't read version.

My normal debate posts are 8-10 times larger than that.
Be thankful I condensed it for you.

*laughing out loud*. :v

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

I don't know what's the problem there just read it and you understand everything diablo 3 sucksuckssucks and vacuums

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

*laughing out loud*

well I like diablo 3