First, the article:
This seems to me to fairly firm proof that sometimes, limitations result in better games. Or maybe Diablo should just always have been a console action title instead of a PC “click on stuff for loot” game.
Would most of this stuff improve the PC version? Probably. But it was all driven from the desire to create an experience that worked better on a console. “Dumbed down for console play”? You be the judge, but I’m not sure which version sounds ‘dumber’.
None of those things somehow require a console and can’t be done on a PC. Blizzard made a shitty game, then a year later decided to redesign it to make it into a less shitty game. This is not compelling evidence of console superiority. I’m not even clear that it is superior, in any case. I’m sure some of the same people were excited about how Dragon Age 2 was going to have a lot more control and be more of a button masher (PUSH BUTTON AWESOME HAPPENS! WOO XBOX), and it was a prime example of ruining a game by dumbing it down. Now Diablo 3 is no dragon age, it’s kind of a shitty game, so it wouldn’t surprise me if they did improve it. But they could’ve re-designed the PC version too with less shittiness if they wanted.
But so many of the “shitty” game design decisions were essentially made because “this is a PC game and we can do it because it’s a PC game.”
i.e. in this case, the features available on the PC encouraged bad decisions.
It’s not a “consoles are superior” argument - after all, all the decisions COULD be “back ported” to the PC, but rather a “hey, look what happens when you look at something from a more restricted perspective” argument.
Sometimes, lots of freedom to do whatever you want is not a good thing.
Edit: Anyway, if it’s not clear at least SOME of what is better, you didn’t read the article.
What’s unambiguously better? Offline play? Sure, I mean, I’ve never actually been inconvenienced by online only play, and the it comes with a drop-in-drop-out multiplayer system, but sure, whatever.
Direct control of the the character? That’s not unambiguously better. Are real time strategy games better than turn based strategy games? No, they’re just different kinds of games. Was Dragon Age 2 better because it was more of a button masher that worked better on gamepads? No, it was awful. Again, not a fair comparison because Dragon Age is 20 times the game Diablo 3 is, but you can’t simply declare it better.
Inventory management? A big part of the addictive cycle that makes people like ARPGs is all the gear, including the useless fluff. I’m not a big ARPG fan, so I don’t really care, but a huge part of what makes it Diablo is all the gear. Removing the amounts of gear and simplifying it all because you can’t see shit on a TV across the room doesn’t sound like an upgrade at all for the sort of people who like this kind of game.
Using skills in combat will also necesarily be worse. You can bind 10 or 12 different skills and abilities to whatever keys and mouse buttons you want on the PC, whereas on the console version you’ll probably have to use some stupid pause-wheel selection mechanism or be limited to 2 or 3 skills.
No real money auction house? Probably for the better for the game, but I have friends who’ve made like $300 from selling shit to stupid people in the game, so again kind of a mixed bag.
It may well be a better game, I’d like to actually see it in action before I start declaring in superior, but none of the changes sound unambiguously better to me.
I still don’t find the argument compelling anyway. Even if it is better, it’s the one in a thousand example of a game where the console version actually manages to be better, and then it’s not better because there’s something better about consoles, it’s better because Blizzard realized they released a shitty game and decided to rework it into a less shitty game.
I feel like you’re railing against a strawman here, Beef. Neither Airk nor the PA Report article had anything to say about consoles being better than PCs. They’re saying that *this version * of this game is better than the PC version.
As the only really important aspect of a game is whether or not it’s enjoyable, there’s no way to call it “unambiguously better.” That’s why it’s a review on a game web site and not a paper in a scientific journal.
Oh give me a break, he created this thread because he thought he finally found some example to counter all of the “oh, if you have a choice, buy this game on PC because that version is better for various reasons” stuff.
Or at least that’s a more charitable assumption than the “less freedom leads to better game design!” argument.
So the game is better because… You have to deal with menus and sub-menus to check out equipment. Or is it because I gotta pause to swap skills/abilities? Or maybe it’s better because you get less loot. Or because the GUI and font is so big, your grandpa can read it from accross the room. Or maybe it’s the lower frame rate and resolution (my god, the frame rate can be bad how did they screw that up?)? Or perhaps because there are less enemies on the screen at a time?
Not seeing why this is better, except that some console gamer on the Penny arcade Staff prefers to play games on console. Diablo 3 is on console - therefore it is better (for him).
Sounds interesting. If it comes to Xbox, I could see myself being very interested. I’ve been playing Path of Exile a little bit recently, and would like something on the console like this.
Heh, this is actually amusing for an April 1st gag. Diablo probably -would- play better as an old-school twin-stick shooter than its cumbersome pointer driven thing.
I played Diablo III at PAX East too. I never played the PC game (cue the shocked gasps of the crowd that I’m not a PC gamer), but it really was tons of fun with a controller in hand.
I very obviously can’t say which one is better, only that the PS3 version is good.
How did you read the entire article and miss the first thing they mention? It has true multiplayer. And, yes, it is better that you get less but more powerful loot. And they have an onscreen system to manage it–the menus are an added bonus if you want to get more granular. And, yes, frankly, pausing the game to deal with things is better than always having to be on alert.
The only real console vs. PC things seems to be the fighting. But, yes, I prefer actually moving characters to repeated clicking over and over. But, then again, I don’t like the genre of game. Virtual loot collecting just isn’t my thing.
Yeah, and it was a rather elaborate trick, having a booth at Pax with a playable demo.
What, are you talking about local coop? How in the fuck can you possibly declare that “true multiplayer” as if everything else isn’t?
Eh, I don’t really like action RPGs that much either, but the loot lottery is a big part of why people play them. You can’t simply say it’s better.
Yes, it’ll probably be awful. Those things are always awful.
In any action game? Seriously? You think pausing the game constantly to choose which skill to use yet result in a better gameplay experience than simply having all of your abilities at the ready to use instantly at any time?
Is that a change? I only played it when it first came out, but at that point you could only have a certain number of skills available at a time, and you couldn’t change them in the middle of combat.
I do like the way that Guild Wars did skills. You had a ton to choose from but you could only have 8 usable at any one time. It meant putting some thought into what you were going to be doing.
It sounds like the only thing it really has over the PC version is 1) no “online-only” requirement and 2) no auction house. Which uh, any PC gamer could’ve told you before the game came out would’ve made the game a better product.
I’m not actually convinced about either of those points. Trading loot has always been an inherent part of the Diablo games, and the auction house was the inevitable evolution of that. Meanwhile, for the trades to be meaningful, they have to be conducted in an online-only environment as in D2 or D3, or you end up with everyone running around with Obsidian Rings of the Zodiac.