Diablo 3, Deepness in games and logic

Discussion in 'General Chit-chat' started by Waterd103, May 25, 2012.

  1. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    This thread is the product of a chat moment where Sirlin stated that I'm wrong.
    Wrong about what? not sure, but it seems I didn't state anything to refute in first place.

    So want the community to help me define 3 things
    a) Where of the statements that follow are wrong
    b) What a deep/Shallow game is.
    c) If Diablo3 is or not a shallow game.

    -I can Achieve whatever the current best player in the world achieved on my first try-----If you want to argue the construction of the statement, that is fair play, whoever, do not argue about if this is true or not for now, so far in my discussions in the chat nobody call me wrong because this wasn't true, so im not interested for now if this statement is true or not. So for now , for the purpose of the following statements let's assume it's true (however it's fair play to question if it's a statements that makes sense in first place).

    -Since I can achieve on my first try, whatever the best player in the world achieved, then Diablo 3 is a shallow game.

    I will tell here my definition of shallow game, but in this thread is fair play to argue or discuss what is a shallow/deep game, since its important. however I think my statement holds true for most of the definitions of deep/shallow game can come with.

    But in my definition a game is more deep, the harder is for a player to achieve the most expected value possible, at achieving the goal of the game.

  2. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Yeah more of this crap, great. Stop saying the best Diablo player in the world, you're off the rails there already. As I told you before, imagine a biology textbook where if you miss a chapter review question, you rip up the book and throw it in the trash then start the book over. If you can get through the book, are you the best biology student in the world? No, because that is a stupid way to read the book so the "best" biology students aren't reading the book in that way. You might be the best reader of biology books in that gimmicky way, sure.

    All single player games are "shallow" in a sense, so if you mean it in that vacuously true way, then ok, but no meaning of course. As for the actual game of Diablo3, I have explored many builds and tried many things, and it's been more interesting than most games, actually. Building a deck was as fun as expected. Now, the difficulty tuning could be better, like maybe inferno should have fewer one-shot kills, but you aren't even talking about that. Anyway, because there has been a lot of exploring that was fun, no it's not "a shallow game" in the way you mean it. That there are some too-good builds that are nerfed is kind of beside the point there.

    I think you started with the conclusion that you don't like the game, then moved onto the step of saying absurd things that make no sense, such as referencing the best player in the world, or thinking that has anything to do with hardcore, or that it's even a valid thing in such a game. I think you massively "don't get it" what Diablo is even for. I recommend you drop your terrible rhetoric and instead replace it with this:

    "I think I can beat hardcore mode in X way. Does anyone think I can't?" Then you could try it. You will learn approximately nothing about shallow/deep games from this, so you can drop that discussion here. If your actual interest was in shallow/deep games, you wouldn't be framing any of it like this.
  3. Claytus

    Claytus Well-Known Member

    I think the issue really is with your assumption of being able to accomplish what a hypothetical "better" player can.

    A couple reasons why:
    1) Hardcore mode. I am willing to bet you can't beat the entire game without ever dying on your very first try

    2) Speed. The game does have an in-game timer listed on the character select screen. Since the game is effectively an endless grind, the only differentiating factors become when you achieved some goal, not if you achieved some goal.

    3) What counts as "accomplishment" in the first place? For example, I don't think killing Diablo is actually an accomplishment. It's the thing at the end of the game, but again, the game is just sort of an endless grind. Of course you're going to do that.

    So given #3 above, all the gameplay actually revolves around character construction (skills, items, whatever). Which sort of implies the whole thing is more of a sandbox experience. "Here's some abilities to have fun killing monsters with... go use them!"

    You could argue that makes the levelling experience dumb, since you have to grind before you get all the abilities. But I think it's valid to look at it the other way. At any given moment, you have a set of X abilities, and should try to experiment with how to use them optimally. X increases over time, but there's always decisions you can make (past the first half hour of the game, or so). You just have to use the options you have, not focus on ones you'll eventually have.
  4. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    The best biology student in the world, would be one that person, that with the same starting amount of biology information, would in the lesser period of time, pass the hardest biology test possible.
    However there aren't test of "best biology student in the world", and we would agree studying game is not a game (though a game could be made out of it ).
    Thus finishing reading a book do not assess in any way how good someone is at studying biology. However doing what you say he is doing seems to have no benefits for the purpose of studying biology, so i don't see why he would do that.
    I hope my answer have some use because actually you told me to imagine that, but I see no purpose for imagining that, even after I did. So I answered your questions, and will move on for now.

    Some games are more deep or shallow than others, that is , I thought a known thing. Roulette is way more shallow than expert minesweeper. Golf is more deep than Adventure Island. If you disagree, state it so plz, though I don't think you would.

    Having a lot to explore do not talk really about the deepness of shallowness of a game, if that were true, then a game with a billion characters is more deep than one with only 2 , always.
    That is league of legends in adding a char every two weeks are making the game deeper. Since it gives more things to explore.
    I think having more things to explore is not a sign of deepness of shallowness but if you or someone think so, plz state so and let's go from there.

    I started as I always start, seeing a game, what it's about and how it works and make an opinion, then after seeing that i decided I don't like the game. All that follow is actually just an explanation of how I reached the "I don't like " part in first place.

    If hardcore has nothing to do with the best player in the world. Then define how BEST or EFFICIENCY can be achieved.
    Maybe i'm missing the goal of the game, though so far I though it was killing Diablo, and then there were many difficulties, if the goal of the game is not killing diablo, plz state the real goal.
    If the goal is Kill diablo, then it's a matter in which difficulty can I kill diablo. I though Hardcore/Nightmare was the hardest achieved. Thus, by achieving that on my first try, I achieved the goal on the maximum difficulty.
    If you want to state the goal is another plz state the goal.

    If you claim that the game has NO GOAL, then the game is shallow , if you agree with my definition of shallow, otherwise, redefine game deepness for all of us.
  5. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    Claytus, it was stated that i didn't want to argue if I COULD or not, that is a different matter , but the point FOR NOW is that even if i could that wouldn't prove anything. Let's discuss that for now plz.
    I don't understand why I have to explain this twice.

    Under my definition of shallowness, Sandbox games are indeed shallow games, so you would have to redefine what deep games or shallow games are if you want to state that I'm wrong here, and I welcome you to do it.

    No, this is so far 100% irrelevant for the current purpose of this thread So far, as I stated before.
  6. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    Did you just state that LoL is shallow game?
  7. Claytus

    Claytus Well-Known Member

    You've got it backwards. Of course Sirlin's biology example was ridiculous, as you pointed out. But the reason you said that was because your way of talking about Diablo is equally ridiculous.

    There are many reasons to play the game. It's a great social experience in co-op mode. It's good as a "turn off your brain and click on the mouse" style leisure activity for people who like that type of leisure activity after a day of work. And yes, killing Diablo on Inferno is one possible goal as well that someone could set for themselves. You could also say filling up the achievement menu is the "goal". Or making lots of gold on the auction house.

    But there's no particular reason to state that the goal of Diablo is more interesting than any of the others. Nothing happens if you achieve that goal. It just keeps going, because as stated before, it's an endless grind. It will ask you if you want to try again with different skills... or use a different class? But there's not some trumpet fanfare and a game over screen the way there is an a normal RPG with an ending.
  8. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    I just stated that the number of characters in LOL do not define the deepness or otherwise of league of legends
  9. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    Claytus, you are not addressing any point asked or relevant to the thread, This is not a thread about if diablo is great game or there are reasons to play the game and so on and on, That may be though a interesting discussion that I'm even willing to have, that is not though what this thread is about.

    If your claim though is , that Diablo game do not have a goal, then I will say if its so under my definition of shallow game , diablo3 is a shallow game. If you disagree, you would have to state the goal of the game or redefine what a shallow game is, otherwise you would have to agree that Diablo3 is a shallow game.
  10. Claytus

    Claytus Well-Known Member

    It's a meaningless statement if you say this, though.

    Yes, in theory I *could* beat the best chess player in the world on my very first game of chess by choosing a completely random series of moves that just happened to be correct. The chances of this actually happening are like 1 in a quadrillion or worse. But you can't actually say it's impossible.

    Does this make a chess a shallow game?
  11. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    ok , maybe its incomplete, replace Could, with, If attempted, my chances would be 99% or more, discarding the cases where my connection or the servers kill my character.
    Again, I'm not interested in arguing if it's true those are my chances. For now we are arguing "If this is true, then..."
  12. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    The biology student in question would be using a limitation that makes no sense in the pursuit of learning biology. A diablo hardcore player is using a limitation that makes no sense in the main point of diablo which is exploring builds. You could create challenge if you felt like it by playing hardcore, but that is some side-gimmick thing.

    If you beat hardcore diablo, on the one hand, that would be a hard thing. So if a non-douchebag did that, we would say "hey great job, you did a hard thing." Somehow you want to use it to prove things that do not logically follow though.

    Here is a statement of your stance:

    1) This sandbox game with all these toys that have like 10^14 combinations is "shallow." (Useless definition of shallow. Misunderstands the point of the game.)

    2) I will show this (the nonsense of point 1) by playing a gimmick mode that minimizes the fun of the sandbox exploration.

    3) I will use a goal that even the developers say isn't the goal in order to do this. (The champion packs of monsters are much harder than the bosses.)

    You have multiple levels of nonsense and missing the point going on here all at once. I really think you should drop your concept of "shallow" when it really makes no sense when applied to a sandbox. If you want to apply it to a hard challenge, then ok let's do that. Here's a hard challenge: be the best able to defeat the champion packs of monsters on inferno. And you can add in "as fast as possible" if you want. In order to do that, you need to understand builds, understand which gear you'd want, know how to fight the monsters, and do efficiency stuff on farming in order to get the gear you want and learn the tactics you want. In other words, not shallow at all.
    Gon likes this.
  13. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    First I'm going to say that you did not redefine the concept of shallow game, and you did not establish a goal for diablo3, meaning that you indeed failed to refute my point.
    That is unless you think you somehow did?

    It seems you have a usefull definition, I'm still waiting for it.

    I will play WHATEVER mode is the non gimmick mode in order to accomplish whatever goal, just tell me the mode and the goal.

    So what is the goal, the developers say?

    So far we still have no definition of shallow game, and no goal defined. We are making no progress in this thread.
  14. Claytus

    Claytus Well-Known Member

    Well, ok. Then the answer is that Diablo doesn't fit that definition. You do not have a 99% or greater chance of beating Inferno difficulty on your first hardcore character.

    I mean, sure I could say "If this is true, then Diablo would be a shallow game." But it's not true, so... wat?
  15. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    I will state it for third time, if this is possible or not Is not the point of this thread for now. (Have in mind that is not my statement, I will copy paste from first post
    So if what's true, my statement or your new statement?
  16. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Of course there is no way to talk about shallow game when your example is a sandbox game. You should be talking about chess or starcraft 2 or something if you want to talk about shallow vs deep. This is why I said you're entirely off the rails to begin with. Using a term that has no meaning for this type of game. And by the way, if it did have a meaning (if we focus on the challenge of Diablo instead of on the sandbox for some strange reason) you'd be wrong as I already explained. Because there is kind of a lot to builds / gear / tactics / efficiency in order to fight the hardest stuff and defeat it in a reasonable amount of play time. You are also of course wrong about 99% chance of doing anything at all on hardcore, which is beside the point anyway.
  17. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    So , in your definition of shallowness (that is STILL NOT GIVEN) Sandbox games are not shallow or deep, deepnees of games do not apply to sandbox games? (It would be easier if you would give the definition)
  18. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Actually giving a definition is not required in order to call out your bullshit. It is enough to simply point out that trying to apply the term where it makes no sense...makes no sense. And I have already done that, so this whole thread is null.

    A totally separate thread might ask what shallow means, but that thread wouldn't be about diablo 3 or you killing hardcore bosses. Probably it would be about there being a lot of viable options / paths to victory, and then most of the debate is about at which level of skill. Like if at intermediate level of skill if there is only 1 option, but expert level 1 million options, is that "deep"? Or if at super mega expert level there is only one option, but at a theoretical level higher than any human currently is, there are 1 million options, is that deep? Further, there would have to be discussion not just on number of options but on the complexity / interesting decisions for any given option.
  19. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    You just, arbitrarily so at least so far, stated (or i think so , because all answers are kind of non specific)that a sandbox games can't have a deepness property.

    Now if your statement is, because you said so, not the developers, that Diablo 3 is a SANDBOX GAME, and that sandbox game have NO GOALS, and thus it can't be given a deepness property. (As you see I'm helping you out here making specific statements for you, based on what you say, instead of you doing it yourself).

    Then that would be an ok statement I would agree with. Is that your statement or does that statement align with your beliefs?
  20. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Yes, you have restated what I already said.

    And if you felt like treating the game as a challenge, you could devise any of a million possible challenges for yourself. One example you could devise is beating the diablo boss on hardcore inferno, which would be absurdly difficult. Note that you could create many, many other challenges over arbitrary things. There is really only one challenge I can think of that is "natural" given how the game works though. The "natural" challenge is to get the builds / gear / playskills / efficiency to be able to beat the hardest monsters that give the best gear. Seems like a lot goes into doing that so it's not "shallow." And while it would be fairly clear if you were succeeding at that goal (by simply seeing if you can beat those monsters at all, or more often than once per year or something) there is not super specific exact measure because the game is not designed to have a single concrete measurable goal like starcraft 2, where you have a definite win/lose.

    So if you want a challenge, I guess see if you are more efficient / faster at being able to farm the hardest stuff that currently no one can. If you succeed at that, incidentally, you'd get a lot of valuable gear that almost no one else would have, so it could be sold for real money on the auction house.
    link6616 likes this.
  21. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    Ok, as I said in the chat, if the statement is that Diablo3 is a sandbox game and that sandbox game lack deepness property I accept that, and the rest of the thread becomes a moot point to me.
  22. link6616

    link6616 Well-Known Member

    .... Does it really matter if diablo is a shallow game? I mean it's just a grind and loot game with friends (next super popular iOS game, hack and loot with friends, calling it now). It's fun in that mindless somewhat cathartic manner Sengoku Basara or dynasty warriors is, there is certainly a lot of complexity to its skill system, which it itself seems to have the depth to keep you tinkering for a while, although that's probably counted as calculation over depth.

    A much more interesting question is though your first statement

    -I can Achieve whatever the current best player in the world achieved on my first try

    This is interesting in part because par tof the reason they likely became the best in the world is they developed such a good understanding of it, and if you achieved what they did, by looking at what they did I'd say they're still the better player due to their bĂȘte understanding of the game tat allowed them themselves to achieve that.

    Although for diablo 3 I'd say The closest thing to completion is to finish the hardest difficulty at the lowest level possible (hardcore mode doesn't really matter, it makes things more stressful, but it only makes the game harder insofar as it punishes you more)
    specs likes this.
  23. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    No link, as defined, it's clearly its not relevant, because diablo can't be a shallow game, as it can't be deep, it just , as all sandbox games, lack that property.
  24. garcia1000

    garcia1000 World Champion Staff Member

    I heard there is no goal in life and you have to set goals for yourself to achieve, so life is shallow.
    zem and Gon like this.
  25. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    You are wrong garcia, the goals in life is to satisfy the needs ands wants of your body. Actually you become a better person at becoming efficient at accomplishing those goals that surface again and again.

    However I heard life is not a game, I may be wrong.
  26. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    Saturday sain, what is a "reward"?
  27. garcia1000

    garcia1000 World Champion Staff Member

    You're right, life isn't a game, it's a sandbox
    zem, link6616 and Leartes like this.
  28. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    I never said it's a sandbox though.
    You claim life is a sandbox?
  29. pkt-zer0

    pkt-zer0 Well-Known Member

    Nope. Having a billion characters does not mean there are more viable options. Just more options. And it's "having a multitude of viable options that are interesting to explore" that Sirlin was talking about as depth, if I understand correctly. It's about the journey, not the destination.
    (And yes, this would make sense for "sandbox" games as well, having few, boring options to explore would make for a worse, shallower game)

    Jay Wilson once said that Diablo is a game about viable builds, not optimal ones - this is the key point that you seem to be missing.
  30. Gon

    Gon Active Member

    Dear Mr. Robot,

    I read the OP, and all your statements started with "I [can/did]...". I am wondering why what you did matters in the evaluation of a game. Have you tried writing a letter to Blizzard telling them what you did and why your actions define properties of a game?
  31. rozencrantz

    rozencrantz Active Member

    I think within the domain of sandbox games, a better definition of depth would be more like the definition that as you said does not work for LoL. If there isn't a goal, then having more new different characters does deepen the game, even when it would not deepen a game that does have a goal. The categories "sandbox game" and "goal-driven game" are different enough that definitions that make sense for one just don't make sense for the other, but the same word does seem to apply to both. Similar to how "depth" means something completely different when you are talking about swimming pools.
  32. Leartes

    Leartes Well-Known Member

    I like this one best. Lets assume I never played a game of chess. Now I play the world champion and because I am such a brain, I have 99% chance of beating him. Is chess shallow now?

    I guess that assumption is as realistic as your assumption regarding diablo3 hardcore mode on inferno. Therefore if we take the assumption and argue on its basis, than we have to apply the other assumption on chess. (or any other game e.g. sc2)

    Also remember that the goal in chess is not necessarily about beating your opponent. It might be about meeting people (I met a lot of go players that claimed go was a way to travel to interesting places and meet interesting people, the result of the tournament was important but not the only goal). In chess as in life you can make up your own goals. Sure you don't officially win, but they can be as fulfilling as any official goal. Now diablo3 lacks an official goal, does it change anything? Not for me.
  33. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    Wait, how is D3 a sandbox? I thought once you perfored your task the game ends, right?
  34. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    PKT-Zero0 : Sirlin stated that Diablo3 can't be shallow or deep so I don't think he talked about diablo3 and deep since as far as I know it would make no sense according to him.

    Gon: I know what I can achieve, and I'm the only testers I have that is willing to do any test, so it's relevant what I can do and can't do. That is unless like, in the following post, Leartes suggest I'm some kind of Awesome above the average human. I think i'm not but if that is gonna be your position, well I agree my statement may have problems.

    Leartes: As I said your "complain" is valid if we wouldn't assume i'm just a normal human. In the case you stated of chess, that human is....wow ,all i have gonna say. Some things in a sentence could be a assumed, I think it was assumed i'm not far and beyond super human intelligence, specially since there is no evidence I am. So unless you have some evidence that I'm a human way and beyond common human intelligence, your point is moot, and I don't have to make clear that I'm not because most reads would assume I'm not.
    And the game of chess is about beating your opponent, claiming otherwise is just the idea that we can create our own games, which is fine but we are doing that, creating our own games.

    Saturday Sain: I will start asking you to read my statements and declare how my statements could be an analogy to yours. Your analogy are not even close to my statements.

    I will also assume later (tell me if wrong) that you disagree with Sirlin, and you think Depth can be given to a sandbox game or diablo3 (I'm unclear if you agree diablo3 is a sandbox game). That is based on the statements you made.
    Now that you disagree with sirlin let's start a different discussion. I'm glad you defined what a shallow game is for you.
    Sadly your example later confuses me. You claim that
    In fighting game dropping your opponent healthbar is a reward only because there is a GOAL, that goal is beating an opponent, and reducing healthbar thus could be considered a reward as it puts you closer to a goal, which is what humans want when the strive for a Goal.

    However, then you are saying that diablo3 not only can have depth, but indeed have predefined goals.
    Why predefined? Because if they aren't predefined any goal that exist, is just made up by you as a player. If that's true, then game depth is defined purely by amount of data a game contains, regardless of properties of that data.
    Why? Because if there is a lot of data, and I can define the Goals and we accept your definition of shallowness, since I can always create Almost infinite amount of goals, I can always create goals, where there is a LOT of exploration to do , and that a lot of that exploration will give me rewards that will help me to attain those goals.
    I could go on with this, but first I want you to know if consider diablo3 to have a predefined goal or that you have to make up your own goals.
    However and I didn't bring this up, have in mind that if the game do not have a Goal, under most definitions of game I know (feel free to bring your own), Diablo3 then is not a game, but as someone pointed out in the chat, more of a toy or tool. Part of the definition of Game as far as I know is that of the Goal.

    As far as I'm told, that's not true, you get in an endless cycling of farming.
  35. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    Also why would sandbox lack depth?

    A game like Prototype 2 could be considered deeper because it's weapons are more balanced, as opposed to Prototype where the best way to deal with opponents is "WHIP IT GOOD!" (except for blade on bigger enemies) while in the sequel the weapons are bit more balanced. A too optimal (in price, availability, damage, carrying capacity) weapon could make sandbox way too easy. So maybe it isn't depth, but balance?
  36. specs

    specs Well-Known Member

    As the best tic-tac-toe player in the world, all other games of tic-tac-toe are immediately compared to mine and ruled shallow. Thorough analysis of how tic-tac-toe is mechanically shallow by virtue of its design is meaningless.
  37. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    -Y- I would like the know the answer of that question too.
  38. icewolf34

    icewolf34 Well-Known Member

    What is the achievement and what is a try, in this context? Also, are there RPGs which allow infinite grind which you consider to be deep games?

    I feel like the undercurrent in this thread is the feeling that Diablo 3 is an easy game to play. So far that's definitely true for me, but I think it's actually (surprisingly) not true at the very end of the game. Like on the official forums, there is a guy who posted his Witch Doctor (Splinter Darts + escapes) build and claims that he can clear all acts with it, and other people look at his stats and build and claim that it's literally impossible. But actually, he livestreams and proved that he can.

    By the way, in Diablo 2 there were 'ladder seasons', which I think were basically a race to the top in a limited amount of time. Unfortunately that timeframe was months which makes it kind of not a pure competition, but I guess you could devise a similar challenge over the course of 12 hours or something.
  39. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    In my understanding, a game have multiple end conditions. A try is is a run that goes from the start of the game until one of the end conditions.
    The achievement in this context is how good score or whatever meassure is used ingame to keep track of player progress. I thought that in diablo that was how further in acts/difficulty you were, Assuming that a harder difficulty is a better achievement.
    However I'm told Diablo lacks end condition, which if it's true, then it makes sense to be pointless to assign depth.
    I agree that if this is the case, it's more coherent to call it a toy or a tool than a game. But for this reason I decided to make the other thread about game definition, since I have my definition, Wikipedia and dictionaries around have their own, and it seems some people around here have yet another.

    No, however depth can be assigned since they have end condition. Is just as easy as tic tac toe to reach the better score (reaching the end).

    This is similar to games which the end condition and the best score condition are one of the same. (imagine Sonic the hedgehog where you are immortal. And thus the only way to end the game is actually to reach the end (and the goal of the game is to reach the end), some RPGs act on this premise.
  40. icewolf34

    icewolf34 Well-Known Member

    Okay, so what makes one RPG deeper than another? Assuming the goal is to reach the end (probably in minimal time vs. with highest score since score probably just increases with time spent).

    I guess we're starting to retread old ground, but there are some interesting optimization problems to solve in D3 if you want. The most obvious one is achieving a minimal Inferno Diablo clear time, without interacting with other players.
  41. garcia1000

    garcia1000 World Champion Staff Member

    Diablo 3 is not a memorization puzzle though, because it has randomness.
    Aphotix, link6616 and zem like this.
  42. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    A thought occurred to me. What if you (waterD) are looking for challenge in Diablo 3 and you found none. To me that seems the most logic conclusion. A deep game is usually mentally challenging and a shallow one isn't. Perhaps you haven't found Diablo challenging/balanced enough.
  43. link6616

    link6616 Well-Known Member

    Although deep games can be extremely easy, mainly due to the balance being on the easy side and not requiring the use of that depth.
  44. Gon

    Gon Active Member

    Well one issue might be, if Diablo boils down to finding optimal builds for your characters, without needing time perfecting mechanical skills or yomi, you can just copy successful builds, and then breeze through the game. If that's the case, then the "shallow" claim might actually be justified.

    I don't really think that makes the game bad though. For some reason, I don't think Diablo was made for spikes. Diablo has a lot of things you can experiment with and various builds to try out, and imo, this is one of those things where the fun is in the journey, and not the final result.
  45. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    Icewolf34: Well for all those RPG that the objective is to reach the end, and you can grind non stop until you have everything and the breeze through it, they are as shallow as tic tac toe.

    -Y-: The most logical conclusion from what? And even that you are stating is true, what it has to do with the topic of this thread?

    At this point, there are two ways for posters, A) Agreeing with Sirlin in that Diablo lack a depth property b) Disagree with Sirlin and state your own reason why you disagree with my first post or agree with it.
  46. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    1. You think something is lacking in diablo
    2. You think that is depth
    3. Sirlin says sandbox don't have depth

    One of statements 2. and 3. are wrong. My intuition is that perhaps the number 2 is wrong meaning it ain't depth but a different property.
  47. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    If 2 is wrong, then 3 is wrong. As Diablo is a sandbox. you disagree that diablo is a sandbox?
  48. specs

    specs Well-Known Member

    Diablo is a sandbox?

    I realize "sandbox" is one of those malleable terms that both does and doesn't apply to a wide variety of games, but about the only thing in Diablo that's "sandbox" is my ability to... to...




    Diablo isn't a sandbox.
  49. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    Sandbox in the meaning that you can dick around after the main game finishes.
  50. specs

    specs Well-Known Member

    So, every game.

Share This Page