Diablo III: Runestones.

[Kraszu]

its 2011 and diablo 3's camera is still isometric? wtf blizzard have you not learned from bethesda & esp. bioware yet?

the camera is adjustable.

Source? Old post but I am to lazy to dig more.

http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?to ... 0677234788

"It's a fixed camera. Back when we announced the game we had our dialogue interaction set up where the camera would zoom in, and you'd see the characters up close and they'd talk to each other in this zoomed in view. We threw that out a long time ago though just because it was too intrusive, it stopped the game, pulled you out of the action, and just felt like too much. There was also a point where we zoomed in on the character in one of the videos to show some attack animations and item switches better, but that's not a feature of the game.

The camera doesn't zoom or tilt or rotate, it's a fixed camera.

It's kind of fun to watch people that have never played a Diablo game before, or it's been a long time. They immediately go for the WASD keys, and when those do nothing they then try holding down the right mouse button to rotate the camera. Sometimes by accident they're reminded it's click to move.

It's just not a control scheme and camera angle that are used a lot these days, there's maybe been a handful of games in the past five years that qualify as isometric arpg's? So anyway, props to all those games and the developers keeping the style alive. We're continuing the tradition, proudly, because we feel it's the best way to present a sequel in the Diablo franchise. "

 

[1eyedking]

you are such a fucking fucking fucking stupid fucking fucking fuck. quit ruining the game for me with your distaste for grinding that may be what it is, or isn't or present. fuck.

I have no problem with grinding as long as it's satisfying, fun and engaging, and serves a grander purpose than GOTTA GET THAT ITEM TO FINISH OFF MY SET and derivatives.

For example, a single playthrough in Diablo II from Act 1 to 4 is pure awesome, even with all of the "Satan uses D&D's Monster Manual™ " vibe.

Diablo III seems to be taking the 0.0001% CHANCE TO DROP AWESOMENESS route.

 

[Mastermind]

Planning is not metagaming. Thats just gaming. Metagaming is planning in PvP based on out-of-game knowledge on what they are likely to do.

No, metagaming is planning in a game using out of game knowledge, period. Whether it's PVP or not is irrelevant.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

Planning is not metagaming. Thats just gaming. Metagaming is planning in PvP based on out-of-game knowledge on what they are likely to do.

No, metagaming is planning in a game using out of game knowledge, period. Whether it's PVP or not is irrelevant.

There is no out of game knowledge in a situation that isn't PvP. Reading a guide is not "out of game knowledge", its in game knowledge that you are reading. Else every single game in existence could be metagamed. D2 is not a PnP LARP simulator where you are only allowed to act in character.

 

[hoverdog]

No probably not. Even the games that are direct competitors won't stand a chance. Diablo 3 will be the best-selling (A)RPG of all time.

Not because its good, but because its made by Blizzard. RE: SC2.

Fucking this

 

[Mastermind]

There is no out of game knowledge in a situation that isn't PvP. Reading a guide is not "out of game knowledge", its in game knowledge that you are reading.

Out of game knowledge = knowledge you acquired out of game. It doesn't mean the knowledge itself exists apart from the game. It's the difference between experimenting with the game yourself to figure out optimal solutions and just getting that knowledge off someone else.

 

[1eyedking]

There's nothing wrong with metagaming as long as it doesn't reach epic levels of faggotry (examples: D&D 3rd multi-classing, encounters that can only be won through save/load knowledge, use of spreadsheet formulas, etc.)

 

[Mastermind]

No probably not. Even the games that are direct competitors won't stand a chance. Diablo 3 will be the best-selling (A)RPG of all time.

Not because its good, but because its made by Blizzard. RE: SC2.

Fucking this

Everything Blizzard has made to far has been good, at least in the technical sense. Whether the particular content appeals to you or not is a different story (I hate warcraft in all of its incarnations myself), but in terms of mechanics and polish Blizzard is hard to beat. They also tend to avoid following the crowd and don't hold back on huge amounts of content unlike companies like Bioware which essentially assume the player is functionally retarded.

 

[1eyedking]

Up to recently they were also gods in the art direction department.

Now not only is it not good, it's actually so bad that it severely detriments from the enjoyment of the gameplay.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

There is no out of game knowledge in a situation that isn't PvP. Reading a guide is not "out of game knowledge", its in game knowledge that you are reading.

Out of game knowledge = knowledge you acquired out of game. It doesn't mean the knowledge itself exists apart from the game. It's the difference between experimenting with the game yourself to figure out optimal solutions and just getting that knowledge off someone else.

Your definition is considered incorrect by the vast majority of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming

Your are misapplying the term used for PnP gaming with that used for video games. Out of game knowledge means knowledge you *can't* acquire ingame, not knowledge that you *didn't*.

No probably not. Even the games that are direct competitors won't stand a chance. Diablo 3 will be the best-selling (A)RPG of all time.

Not because its good, but because its made by Blizzard. RE: SC2.

Fucking this

Everything Blizzard has made to far has been good, at least in the technical sense. Whether the particular content appeals to you or not is a different story (I hate warcraft in all of its incarnations myself), but in terms of mechanics and polish Blizzard is hard to beat. They also tend to avoid following the crowd and don't hold back on huge amounts of content unlike companies like Bioware which essentially assume the player is functionally retarded.

You can say that pretty much anything is good "in a technical sense", if you make up your own definitions of what makes something "technically" good even though the game is bad.

D2 changed an atmospheric and deadly Diablo into a H&S spam skills and do lewt runs game. The only real redeeming features are that it looks really good and ADHD people like to do lewt runs.
WC3/TFT was lackluster, though probably their best since SC. The fact that it was basically a set up for WoW was bad though.
WoW was shit. Anyone who disagrees should be given the dumbfuck tag.
SC2 had possibly the derpest and most insulting SP that I've seen. MP is decent, but not through lack of Blizzard trying to screw it up (unbalanced as fuck for several months as the entire playerbase bitched until they got off their ass to fix it).

 

[Castanova]

Out of game knowledge = knowledge you acquired out of game. It doesn't mean the knowledge itself exists apart from the game. It's the difference between experimenting with the game yourself to figure out optimal solutions and just getting that knowledge off someone else.

This is not true, at all. Metagaming is making an in-game decision based on the fact that you are playing a game. In order to metagame, it is generally assumed that you have to have experience as a gamer. An example of metagaming would be this thought process: "the path to the left looks like the obvious place to go, therefore it'll lead to a locked door, therefore I'll take the path to the right and get the key immediately to avoid backtracking later."

The Wikipedia definition is a bit broader but the point remains.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

Out of game knowledge = knowledge you acquired out of game. It doesn't mean the knowledge itself exists apart from the game. It's the difference between experimenting with the game yourself to figure out optimal solutions and just getting that knowledge off someone else.

This is not true, at all. Metagaming is making an in-game decision based on the fact that you are playing a game. In order to metagame, it is generally assumed that you have to have experience as a gamer. An example of metagaming would be this thought process: "the path to the left looks like the obvious place to go, therefore it'll lead to a locked door, therefore I'll take the path to the right and get the key immediately to avoid backtracking later."

Never heard the term used like this specifically in regards to video games. Most of the time its assumed you think like this, and metagaming is generally thought to be thinking more than you should be. But I suppose it works, though its one which every game has so it doesn't count in any game's favour specifically. Its also a fairly weak example that confers much less gameplay benefit.

 

[Kraszu]

Everything Blizzard has made to far has been good, at least in the technical sense. Whether the particular content appeals to you or not is a different story (I hate warcraft in all of its incarnations myself), but in terms of mechanics and polish Blizzard is hard to beat. They also tend to avoid following the crowd and don't hold back on huge amounts of content unlike companies like Bioware which essentially assume the player is functionally retarded.

BN 2.0. They popularity list was going full retard they had killed UMS, and it was obvious that this will be the result. Playing on some not the most popular map with somebody that you don't know is also practically impossible thanks to that.

 

[Mastermind]

Your definition is considered incorrect by the vast majority of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming

Your are misapplying the term used for PnP gaming with that used for video games. Out of game knowledge means knowledge you *can't* acquire ingame, not knowledge that you *didn't*.

Correction, I am applying the term used for RPG gaming (which includes CRPGs as well). Seeing how this is the RPG codex, in the General RPG discussion and an action RPG topic I do not think I am misapplying anything. Furthermore, none of the wikipedia definitions limit it to multi-player so you are shooting your own original argument in the foot.

You can say that pretty much anything is good "in a technical sense", if you make up your own definitions of what makes something "technically" good even though the game is bad.

No, you can't. See Bloodlines for an rpg that, from a technical sense, is shit in every way, from the actual technology to the character system.

D2 changed an atmospheric and deadly Diablo into a H&S spam skills and do lewt runs game. The only real redeeming features are that it looks really good and ADHD people like to do lewt runs.

Useful actions available to warrior in diablo: swing weapon
Useful actions available to rogue in diablo: fire bow

Occasionally you could use a staff or a spell, though if I remember correctly they had attribute limitations. I wouldn't know because extensively playing anything other than a mage = retard indicator. The atmosphere in Diablo 1 was superior to D2, but it is the only thing it did better. D1 had grind too, only with a much shittier selection of loot and since it only had one skill per character, the mage was the only one with any real gameplay variety. Diablo 2 is superior in every other way and the extensive character system puts diablo to shame.

WC3/TFT was lackluster, though probably their best since SC. The fact that it was basically a set up for WoW was bad though.

WC3 was shit. Anyone who disagrees should be given the dumbfuck tag. And I'm not saying this just to mock your next comment, I actually mean it. Warcraft 3 was the biggest pile of shit to come out of Blizzard's gaping asshole.

WoW was shit. Anyone who disagrees should be given the dumbfuck tag.

I've played WoW for only a couple of days so I wouldn't know. It didn't strike me as any better or worse than all the other mmorpgs I've played, though at the same time Guild Wars is the only one I played extensively since I refuse to pay monthly fees.

SC2 had possibly the derpest and most insulting SP that I've seen. MP is decent, but not through lack of Blizzard trying to screw it up (unbalanced as fuck for several months as the entire playerbase bitched until they got off their ass to fix it).

I never bought SC2 since I heard they turned Mengsk into George Bush.

Played the multiplayer during beta though and it was quite a bit of fun. Definitely miles above Red Alert 3.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

Your definition is considered incorrect by the vast majority of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming

Your are misapplying the term used for PnP gaming with that used for video games. Out of game knowledge means knowledge you *can't* acquire ingame, not knowledge that you *didn't*.

Correction, I am applying the term used for RPG gaming (which includes CRPGs as well). Seeing how this is the RPG codex, in the General RPG discussion and an action RPG topic I do not think I am misapplying anything. Furthermore, none of the wikipedia definitions limit it to multi-player so you are shooting your own original argument in the foot.

D2 isn't an RPG anymore than any other game with numbers is. Even if it was, PnP != CRPG. Try again. If you look at the wikipedia definitions, the vast majority of them involve some kind of PvP in which tailoring a strategy to a specific opponent is the form of metagaming

You can say that pretty much anything is good "in a technical sense", if you make up your own definitions of what makes something "technically" good even though the game is bad.

No, you can't. See Bloodlines for an rpg that, from a technical sense, is shit in every way, from the actual technology to the character system.

OK, whatever. I think Bloodlines is "technically" just fine. Some excellent voice acting, great locations, wonderful atmosphere, fairly good looking for its time. I supposed if you make up terms then you can define what they mean though.

D2 changed an atmospheric and deadly Diablo into a H&S spam skills and do lewt runs game. The only real redeeming features are that it looks really good and ADHD people like to do lewt runs.

Useful actions available to warrior in diablo: swing weapon
Useful actions available to rogue in diablo: fire bow

Occasionally you could use a staff or a spell, though if I remember correctly they had attribute limitations. I wouldn't know because extensively playing anything other than a mage = retard indicator. The atmosphere in Diablo 1 was superior to D2, but it is the only thing it did better. D1 had grind too, only with a much shittier selection of loot and since it only had one skill per character, the mage was the only one with any real gameplay variety. Diablo 2 is superior in every other way and the extensive character system puts diablo to shame.

You discount the fact that is was actually dangerous, positioning actually mattered, and the player character wasn't faster than every enemy in the game so that they could easily finish any battle without a scratch. D2 is basically My First H&S in terms of how difficult it is.

D1 had plenty of depth because you had to decide what spells were worth buying/learning, balance magic to learn new spells with stats to wear better equipment or perform better, etc. The rogue and warrior had to do plenty of spell casting in their games, their weapons only handled single targets which meant groups had to be tackled with finesse and good usage of cheap but effective spells. Stun locks raped you up the ass in D1 if you messed up and got surrounded.

D2's character customization is as simple as finding (or have given to you) the best items you can get and then killing 10000 things to get better items.

WC3/TFT was lackluster, though probably their best since SC. The fact that it was basically a set up for WoW was bad though.

WC3 was shit. Anyone who disagrees should be given the dumbfuck tag. And I'm not saying this just to mock your next comment, I actually mean it. Warcraft 3 was the biggest pile of shit to come out of Blizzard's gaping asshole.

It had decent MP eventually and custom maps were great. SP was at mildly difficult on the hardest settings even if it was a bit Derp, so whatever. TFT was definitely the beginning of decline towards WoW...

WoW was shit. Anyone who disagrees should be given the dumbfuck tag.

I've played WoW for only a couple of days so I wouldn't know. It didn't strike me as any better or worse than all the other mmorpgs I've played, though at the same time Guild Wars is the only one I played extensively since I refuse to pay monthly fees.

Coincidentally, the majority of MMOs are shit, so if you rate WoW as an average MMO then we are in agreement. Cool.

SC2 had possibly the derpest and most insulting SP that I've seen. MP is decent, but not through lack of Blizzard trying to screw it up (unbalanced as fuck for several months as the entire playerbase bitched until they got off their ass to fix it).

I never bought SC2 since I heard they turned Mengsk into George Bush.

Played the multiplayer during beta though and it was quite a bit of fun. Definitely miles above Red Alert 3.

You made the right choice not buying SC2 then. Though saying that the MP is better than RA3 means about as much as saying that F:NV was better than FO3. It isn't hard to beat shit.

 

[Zed]

Grinding is there for people who want everything out of the game.
You don't need to grind to reach the last boss, on any difficulty, or to see everything in the game.
Why are people so fucking uptight about grinding. Do you want to be able to just pick the loot you want once you beat the game? Let people who like grinding grind, and you can just play some other game once you beat the game.

 

[Jasede]

Diablo 1 was easier than Diablo 2.

I don't see how any of this matters to anyone... it'll be a fun game to those who enjoy this basic instinct "kill things, get loot" gameplay. Chances are it'll be tightly polished, as usual. Whatever. It'll be fun for those who like it, and for those that don't: you might be able to bring the horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.

Tastes and perceptions are set in stone more than we'd like to admit. Oh yes, we have arguments all the time, pretending to be open to change our opinion if the presented arguments are persuasive enough- and this does happen. But largely, our opinion has been decided before we even began arguing and all we really strive to do is to broadcast our opinions.

 

[Mastermind]

D2 isn't an RPG. Even if it was, PnP != CRPG. Try again.

Yes it is, and you keep using the word PnP even though the definition for RPGs (broad) fits CRPGs just as well. To use their example "such as tricking a Medusa to stare at a mirror when the character has never even heard of Medusa and should not be aware of her petrifying stare". Why is this metagaming in a pnp rpg but not a crpg?

OK, whatever. I think Bloodlines is "technically" just fine. Some excellent voice acting, great locations, wonderful atmosphere, fairly good looking for its time. I supposed if you make up terms then you can define what they mean though.

Bloodlines was a buggy piece of shit (bad technological base) with shitty gameplay and character system (bad gameplay base). The content (which is what you just described) itself was ok, but pretty bricks on a shit foundation is still a shit house.

You discount the fact that is was actually dangerous,

It wasn't. D2 was, if you don't spend real money or have friends to give you items/rushes.

positioning actually mattered,

Positioning matters in D2 as well.

and the player character wasn't faster than every enemy in the game so that they could easily finish any battle without a scratch.

I don't remember having trouble running away in D1 in the very few instances that required it. Then again, I mostly played a sorcerer and effortlessly popped every mole that stood in my way.

D2 is basically My First H&S in terms of how difficult it is.

D1 is way easier than D2 unless you're being a faggot and having your friends give you items/rushes (or worse, paying real money for them).

D1 had plenty of depth because you had to decide what spells were worth buying/learning,

Meaningless choice. You can just grind for more gold. There's nothing stopping you from starting the game over with the same character at any point in the game and just going through it again if you don't think you're strong enough to keep going.

balance magic to learn new spells with stats to wear better equipment or perform better, etc.

Or grind levels. Attributes were class limited anyway. Severely limited. As in max sorcerer strength = 45. If you want to learn new spells you can just toss on +magic equipment.

The rogue and warrior had to do plenty of spell casting in their games, their weapons only handled single targets which meant groups had to be tackled with finesse and good usage of cheap but effective spells.

I played a rogue for a while (I think i got to the caverns before I realized it was just a retro version of "press awesome button to win" and stopped playing) and never had to use a single spell. Just pelt shit with arrows until they dropped. If in over head, retreat.

D2's character system is basically find (or have given to you) the best items you can get and then kill 10000 things to get better items.

D1's character system is the same in this respect, except you don't actually need them to plow through the game. D2 wins due to sheer variety.

 

[Shannow]

Out of game knowledge = knowledge you acquired out of game. It doesn't mean the knowledge itself exists apart from the game. It's the difference between experimenting with the game yourself to figure out optimal solutions and just getting that knowledge off someone else.

This is not true, at all. Metagaming is making an in-game decision based on the fact that you are playing a game. In order to metagame, it is generally assumed that you have to have experience as a gamer. An example of metagaming would be this thought process: "the path to the left looks like the obvious place to go, therefore it'll lead to a locked door, therefore I'll take the path to the right and get the key immediately to avoid backtracking later."

Never heard the term used like this specifically in regards to video games. Most of the time its assumed you think like this, and metagaming is generally thought to be thinking more than you should be. But I suppose it works, though its one which every game has so it doesn't count in any game's favour specifically. Its also a fairly weak example that confers much less gameplay benefit.

Actually Mastermind is closer. (For once)
Metagaming = anything ingame that your character(s) shouldn't know, anything the player knows that trancends the manual/rule system.
Looking up runewords online in D2 instead of experimenting; pumping vit because you know you'll get equipment that'll take care of your other stats (requirements); pumping certain skills because others found them to be effective late-game, etc.
In other games it'd be solving problems fast because you played through before, etc.

What Castanova describes is simply non-immersion with a sprinkle of metagaming and is Overweight Manatee actually suggesting that "thinking in a game" constitutes metagaming?

 

[Jasede]

You're all pikeys for not knowing that meta-game and meta-gaming has multiple definitions, meaning you're all right.

Observe:

"I don't like playing with Jim, he always meta-games information his character couldn't possibly know."
"Stop it, Bob. We're LARPing and not playing a H&S module. Your ridiculously strong build is meta-gaming."

vs.

"Today, I noticed that my Street Fighter 4 meta-game has improved a lot."
"You have to learn the meta-game of Starcraft before you can get really good at it."
"The meta-game in Diablo 2 is more complex than it might seem at first glance."

One is used especially in P&P gaming to describe gamist actions. For example when someone playing a Fighter uses power-attach on a monster simply because he read up in the Monster Manual that that monster's AC is really low- even though his character is a 6 WIS/INT Barbarian that never met the monster before. It generally refers to the abuse of information that the player but not the character knows.

The other refers to the body of strategy and rules - knowledge - about a game and is essential in competitive play. If you wanted to be a competitive Fighting Game player you'd have to learn each game's meta-game: learn combos that work, hit-delays, timing of parry, and so on and so forth.

 

[Kraszu]

Grinding is there for people who want everything out of the game.
You don't need to grind to reach the last boss, on any difficulty, or to see everything in the game.
Why are people so fucking uptight about grinding. Do you want to be able to just pick the loot you want once you beat the game? Let people who like grinding grind, and you can just play some other game once you beat the game.

I am against it if it is required to make the gameplay good, like mana problem in D2.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

You're all pikeys for not knowing that meta-game and meta-gaming has multiple definitions, meaning you're all right.

Observe:

"I don't like playing with Jim, he always meta-games information his character couldn't possibly know."
"Stop it, Bob. We're LARPing and not playing a H&S module. Your ridiculously strong build is meta-gaming."

vs.

"Today, I noticed that my Street Fighter 4 meta-game has improved a lot."
"You have to learn the meta-game of Starcraft before you can get really good at it."
"The meta-game in Diablo 2 is more complex than it might seem at first glance."

One is used especially in P&P gaming to describe gamist actions. For example when someone playing a Fighter uses power-attach on a monster simply because he read up in the Monster Manual that that monster's AC is really low- even though his character is a 6 WIS/INT Barbarian that never met the monster before. It generally refers to the abuse of information that the player but not the character knows.

The other refers to the body of strategy and rules - knowledge - about a game and is essential in competitive play. If you wanted to be a competitive Fighting Game player you'd have to learn each game's meta-game: learn combos that work, hit-delays, timing of parry, and so on and so forth.

This is true, but PnP strictly enforces characters being reasonable and players only knowing what the character knows. CRPGs, and certainly Diablo 2, have nothing of the sort. No one goes into Diablo 2 looking to role play, therefore creating a power gamed character isn't metagaming because metagaming is doing something outside of what is expected by game.

You discount the fact that is was actually dangerous,

It wasn't. D2 was, if you don't spend real money or have friends to give you items/rushes.

So dangerous that I've easily finished it in Hardcore mode in single player even with my horribly suboptimal placement of points into energy? OK, sure.

positioning actually mattered,

Positioning matters in D2 as well.

and the player character wasn't faster than every enemy in the game so that they could easily finish any battle without a scratch.

I don't remember having trouble running away in D1 in the very few instances that required it. Then again, I mostly played a sorcerer and effortlessly popped every mole that stood in my way.

Not to the extent that you actually had to think about it before hand. If an enemy came out of the darkness from the side of you or a fast one ran up to you in Diablo 1, you died from stunlock. If it happens in Diablo 2, you just run away because stunlocks pretty much never happen, your character runs insanely fast, and the light radius is so huge that you can easily avoid being surprised anywhere.

D2 is basically My First H&S in terms of how difficult it is.

D1 is way easier than D2 unless you're being a faggot and having your friends give you items/rushes (or worse, paying real money for them).

lolno. You could give D2 to a five year old and they would probably get at least until mid nightmare before it got difficult. They would die half way through normal on D1.

D1 had plenty of depth because you had to decide what spells were worth buying/learning,

Meaningless choice. You can just grind for more gold. There's nothing stopping you from starting the game over with the same character at any point in the game and just going through it again if you don't think you're strong enough to keep going.

balance magic to learn new spells with stats to wear better equipment or perform better, etc.

Or grind levels. Attributes were class limited anyway. Severely limited. As in max sorcerer strength = 45. If you want to learn new spells you can just toss on +magic equipment.

If you are a pussy. You can grind for more items to make it easy in D2 as well. The point is that you can intelligently choose what spells and attributes you buy for a character in D1 so that there is no need to grind. No matter how hard you think at the game, it won't make an item that you need for hell difficulty drop faster in D2, which is why it is a mindless game.

The rogue and warrior had to do plenty of spell casting in their games, their weapons only handled single targets which meant groups had to be tackled with finesse and good usage of cheap but effective spells.

I played a rogue for a while (I think i got to the caverns before I realized it was just a retro version of "press awesome button to win" and stopped playing) and never had to use a single spell. Just pelt shit with arrows until they dropped. If in over head, retreat.

So you rate D1 by how hard it is for the first half of the first difficulty? Do you want to hear how easy D2 is in normal mode up until the beginning of Kurast? Because its pretty god damn easy, and in fact the only thing even slightly difficult in D2 Normal is the final bosses.

D2's character system is basically find (or have given to you) the best items you can get and then kill 10000 things to get better items.

D1's character system is the same in this respect, except you don't actually need them to plow through the game. D2 wins due to sheer variety.

O rly? You can play a naked character in Diablo 1 just fine (allowing a weapon for rogue/warrior). You can even do the Beyond Naked route, which makes you use the worst cursed equipment you can find. Can you do so in Diablo 2? Its much harder (nigh impossible with most classes) in Diablo 2. And cursed equipment doesn't even exist in Diablo 2, thanks to the decline.

 

[Zed]

planning your character in such way like not spending points in energy because you know you'll get gear later on is metagaming. you can call it cheating if you like but nonetheless it's metagaming.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

planning your character in such way like not spending points in energy because you know you'll get gear later on is metagaming. you can call it cheating if you like but nonetheless it's metagaming.

No, its only powergaming, not metagaming. One does not necessarily imply the other. The cheating part is having stronger characters give powerful items to the weaker character allowing them to skimp on the early game stats/skills and not be incredibly weak or incredibly boring to play. When you start doing that you might as well just edit the character as well and max their level out.

 

[MMXI]

I haven't read this thread and I haven't read anything about Diablo III's character customisation system, but I just wanted to chime in by saying that Diablo II's skill tree system was absolutely fucking shit.

Why have a skill trees where you can put 20 points into each skill? That's just under 20% of the total skills you'll ever get in the game (110 if I remember correctly) to max out a skill. Now, it might not suck if you could actually comfortably play as a "jack of all trades, master of none" type character, but Diablo II is all about maxing out the few skills you want to use then spamming them like mad. Therefore its skill tree system was just completely retarded. You end up with 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 20, 20 in a tree. It's never advantageous to put anything between 1 and 20 in a skill. Retarded.

So basically, how's Diablo III looking, guys?