Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsASHRIOT'S PROFILE
ashriot
222
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Diablo 3 "vs" Torchlight 2
There is no difference in that situation. It's just that there is the potential to have so many variants of Wizards in D3 with 25 skills that each have 5 rune combinations, that is way more options than you had in D2.
I just really doubt that you and I would want the same exact 6 skills with the same 6 runes in each skill. But it's very likely that we would both want Meteorb Sorc's in D2.
But I want to know what you think of the Diablo III system in general. It sounds like you don't really like it... what don't you like about it?
I just really doubt that you and I would want the same exact 6 skills with the same 6 runes in each skill. But it's very likely that we would both want Meteorb Sorc's in D2.
But I want to know what you think of the Diablo III system in general. It sounds like you don't really like it... what don't you like about it?
Diablo 3 "vs" Torchlight 2
Well I don't know how you played D2, but that was the most efficient way to play that lead to the strongest characters. You want to maximize a single skill (maybe two) by pumping 20 points into it and all its synergies. If you and I were the same Sorc , let's say a Meteorb Sorc, we used the exact same skills in the exact same fashion and the only differentiating factor is our gear. If you didn't play D2 this way then that's fine but it's the same way Torchlight works and it's just not interesting to me.
Diablo III is going to give you lots of customization. We could be the exact same Wizard with Magic Missile, Arcane Orb, and Hydra. But we could have entirely different fighting styles because of the way runes work. That's what excites me the most. And of course gear would be different as well.
Diablo III is going to give you lots of customization. We could be the exact same Wizard with Magic Missile, Arcane Orb, and Hydra. But we could have entirely different fighting styles because of the way runes work. That's what excites me the most. And of course gear would be different as well.
The Screenshot Topic Returns
Diablo 3 "vs" Torchlight 2
Haha, what are you talking about specifically?
And it's not like I'm trying to make it sound bad, I'm just describing why I'm not excited for Torchlight.
And it's not like I'm trying to make it sound bad, I'm just describing why I'm not excited for Torchlight.
Diablo 3 "vs" Torchlight 2
Yeah, I totally forgot about mods honestly. But just seeing all the awesome changes D3 is making makes me totally not care about Torchlight 1 or 2 or with/without mods.
I have always HATED potion chugging, it's just not an interesting gameplay mechanic. It's stupid. Running out of mana and just chugging potions is so retarded it makes my brain hurt. The way D3 is handling healing and potions is much more interesting and tactical. I would always play a caster and put points in Energy and my brother would laugh at me and tell me to start the game over because I'm wasting points. "Just buy mana pots." he'd say. Ugh.
Skill Trees in general are a very old mechanic that isn't very compelling. You simply pump points into the skills you want, nothing into the skills you don't want (or simply can't "afford" to pick up) and then 1 pt in everything else. That's not fun or interesting. The only Pro to the skill point system is that every level, you get to spend a point and you get to feel that slight boost in power.
But in D3, you get a new skill almost every single level until 30 at which point you can begin to try all kinds of different specs with skills/runes/passives. I am salivating at the various builds I've already made and can't wait to try them :D
As far as the online/offline goes, I personally don't care at all because I'm always connected to the Internet. I mean, if I'm on a plane, I'll just play something else. I like the convenience factor of having everything stored online for me with this always-connected approach. I can go to a friend's house with my laptop and just keep playing.
With the lag issue, D2 wasn't exactly the most advanced network, while I'm sure D3 will have a much stronger network because you're paying for a game that forces you to use their servers. This is all speculation though.
I have always HATED potion chugging, it's just not an interesting gameplay mechanic. It's stupid. Running out of mana and just chugging potions is so retarded it makes my brain hurt. The way D3 is handling healing and potions is much more interesting and tactical. I would always play a caster and put points in Energy and my brother would laugh at me and tell me to start the game over because I'm wasting points. "Just buy mana pots." he'd say. Ugh.
Skill Trees in general are a very old mechanic that isn't very compelling. You simply pump points into the skills you want, nothing into the skills you don't want (or simply can't "afford" to pick up) and then 1 pt in everything else. That's not fun or interesting. The only Pro to the skill point system is that every level, you get to spend a point and you get to feel that slight boost in power.
But in D3, you get a new skill almost every single level until 30 at which point you can begin to try all kinds of different specs with skills/runes/passives. I am salivating at the various builds I've already made and can't wait to try them :D
As far as the online/offline goes, I personally don't care at all because I'm always connected to the Internet. I mean, if I'm on a plane, I'll just play something else. I like the convenience factor of having everything stored online for me with this always-connected approach. I can go to a friend's house with my laptop and just keep playing.
With the lag issue, D2 wasn't exactly the most advanced network, while I'm sure D3 will have a much stronger network because you're paying for a game that forces you to use their servers. This is all speculation though.
Diablo 3 "vs" Torchlight 2
I am extremely excited about Diablo III, personally. Torchlight 1 was OK but I never even played through it once because I really enjoy playing caster types and I found the ember alchemist to be incredibly boring. TOrchlight 2 doesn't seem to be doing anything to push the genre forward, rather, they are just re-hashing more of Diablo II, which I enjoyed.... 10 years ago. It's still a great game but I just love the direction that D3 is moving with the genre.
Blizzard has updated their D3 site with a lot of great info, including a skill calculator:
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/game/
Just the sheer number of combinations you can come up with utilizing the passives ans the runstones is completely ridiculous. I absolutely cannot wait to delve into this monster of a game and tweak and customize my wizard :D
Blizzard has updated their D3 site with a lot of great info, including a skill calculator:
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/game/
Just the sheer number of combinations you can come up with utilizing the passives ans the runstones is completely ridiculous. I absolutely cannot wait to delve into this monster of a game and tweak and customize my wizard :D
Difficulty
author=Feldschlacht IV
That doesn't strike me as very fun, having to constantly switch around control of party members during a hectic clutch battle. If anything it sounds pretty infuriating.
Games with AI in control of other party members in an action oriented RPG offer more strategy than you give them credit for. Even if you're not manually inputting commands for AI controlled party members, you're still in control of the outcome and strategizing by things like setting AI behavior, formation, equipment, skills, and how certain party members 'synch' with other party members.
It's like saying that war has no strategy because a general can't literally control the actions of all of his soldiers. That's not true, there's more to strategy than micromanagement.
The demo battle I made really isn't infuriating, though I guess the creator isn't bound to dislike his own creation. Swapping characters is as simple as pressing a button. The control scheme is what will make or break a system like this. If the game played like FFXII with no gambits, it would be unwieldy and frustrating. But the control scheme I have works really well; the few people that have tried it really had fun with it. You should really give it a chance before you completely dismiss it as something unenjoyable.
Like I said, I don't mind AI controlled units (FFXII being my 2nd favorite FF), I just wanted to attempt to make a normal RPG with 3 or 4 playable characters in a battle, but in real time.
I didn't mean to say real time games don't have tactics, quite the opposite, actually! Like in FFXII, you did lots of managing of the behavior of your allies to give them instructions on how to respond to the various conditions in battle. I guess what I meant when I typed that was that you lose the turn-by-turn tactical feeling that you get in a regular, turn-based RPG (each round you get to decide exactly what a character will do.) That's what I was referring to, sorry about that.
Difficulty
author=kentona
When I play an RPG I want to play an RPG, not a twitch game. (This kind of mechanic is what made me not enjoy Super Mario RPG, Jade Empire, and Sabin in FFVI). For me, an RPG is more about strategic choices (both before and during a battle) - not about twitch reflexes or timing. Bleargh.
It's funny, Mario RPG one of my favorite SNES RPGs, and the timed hit mechanic has been something I've wanted in games since its inception. Final Fantasy VI is my favorite FF game of all time, and Sabin is my favorite character BECAUSE of his Blitz!
I LOVED Street Fighter as a kid and it felt like a cool mix of RPG and a little bit of Street Fighter skill. Honestly, I'm not really into fighters anymore even though I bought SFIV, the new MK, and MvC3. All three lost their appeal within a few days/weeks.
I personally really enjoy action elements in RPGs. I still enjoy standard, turn-based RPGs, but I feel like the action element brings the gameplay to life a little bit more. Sometimes, when you land a perfectly timed healing spell or crowd control ability, it's incredibly satisfying to see it pay off. Grandia is a great RPG because of this. It played out like an action RPG with movement and timing being important factors in the battles, but it was all still turned based when it came to commanding the units.
As an example, I've been playing Xenoblade recently, and it's an excellent game with an action RPG style. The biggest downside to games like this is that they are almost always mostly AI-controlled which takes away from the tactical aspect of RPGs. You just control your one character while the other two run around automatically. As fun as Xenoblade is, you really just pick commands when they're not recharging and hope your allies make good decisions. There is a little bit of strategy involved with the angle at which you attack your enemies and when you trigger chain attacks, but its mostly automated.
At least in Final Fantasy XII (my second favorite FF) the gambit system allowed you to create your own strategy so when a character automatically did something, it was because YOU set it up.
My current RPG making goals is to craft an action RPG where you are in full control of the party and nothing is left up to AI. It's making things a little hectic, but to me, that's part of the fun! I have a video in my games section that shows an old demo battle of what I'm talking about.
The Screenshot Topic Returns
Solid89: While I did like the style of the original font, this new one is much more legible and I think it's a great change. That's very cool about the AP SP system and I hope you open a game project soon so I can subscribe :D
Benos: Those giant piles of gold (that's what they are, right?) look awesome. The color really looks golden rather than just yellow. If those marks on the wall are supposed to be cracks, they look more like marks to me. Like scratches or something. And I don't know if you want to adjust this, but the doorway is very boxy. I can imagine why, but if you want to edit it, you can soften the edge a little.
Benos: Those giant piles of gold (that's what they are, right?) look awesome. The color really looks golden rather than just yellow. If those marks on the wall are supposed to be cracks, they look more like marks to me. Like scratches or something. And I don't know if you want to adjust this, but the doorway is very boxy. I can imagine why, but if you want to edit it, you can soften the edge a little.
I would appreciate some feedback about the skill system for my western.
This sounds really interesting. I agree with LockeZ though, if you're going to make gimmicks have a limited use rather than consuming MP, make them per battle rather than per day because you'll end up just saving them for a boss fight or when you're about to die.
If you can do it, you could even add a secondary resource to each character--some sort of momentum that once they get 100 (or whatever) they can use a gimmick. This could fill up rather quickly, or more slowly like a Limit Break.
As for the bullet types, you don't really have to worry about compatibility, unless it really bothers you. Parasite Eve's guns shared mostly the same ammo, there wasn't a different type for every gun. It helps keep things manageable.
There's a fine line between keeping the cool parts of realism and keeping the annoying parts of realism. As long as there aren't a crazy amount of varying bullet types, it sounds like it won't get annoying.
If you can do it, you could even add a secondary resource to each character--some sort of momentum that once they get 100 (or whatever) they can use a gimmick. This could fill up rather quickly, or more slowly like a Limit Break.
As for the bullet types, you don't really have to worry about compatibility, unless it really bothers you. Parasite Eve's guns shared mostly the same ammo, there wasn't a different type for every gun. It helps keep things manageable.
There's a fine line between keeping the cool parts of realism and keeping the annoying parts of realism. As long as there aren't a crazy amount of varying bullet types, it sounds like it won't get annoying.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
