I like how things are now. I love changing my playstyle, caster, dmg burst, sustained dmg, evasion tank, tank, etc, etc. However, I also like when there's a boss that you HAVE to kind the right build, but of course, with respecs and such. No perma-locked stuff.
@Wildcolt
In this agree, Respec should be an option when a build fails, and that should be possible. I just don't think that the player should be pigeonholed into a singular build being the only viable option.
D3 has a diversity problem, but that's far better than a single viable build problem.
I always figured games like D2, D3, TL2, POE, weren't meant to have a specific build, as much so as the programmers just made a lot of random skills for the players to figure out the best combination.
I hate when a cool skill sucks, like the EM's avatar is TL2. So very underpowered.
@Samuel_Bingham play Ecco the Dolphin. In this game there is no such thing as being stuck because you didn't took some item back them. In fact this game works by keyword so you can continue at the same stage you reached last time and you have infinite lives. Yet this game is extremely hard.
But now there isn't as much of a "buy the guide or be stuck in that boss fight forever" thing as there once once since the information in those guides is easily googled now and ongoing patches make printed guides rapidly out-of-date anyway.
@Bomb Bloke: I think the death of the Game Guide is the big motivator away from the "crushing difficulty" style of design. Back in the old days, game companies had a financial interest in motivating players to by the game AND the guide, by inserting vicious tricks like Jo's Fire Scroll example.
There's a big difference between "unwinnable because you didn't read the game guide" and "unwinnable because you did something stupid". These days games tend to be "winnable either way" - there's no save thing as a "game over" any more, just a "reload of your last auto-save".
I don't necessarily think games are any easier in that regard to be honest, in fact they've probably gotten far more granular. What's changed is player's access to information to make better decisions. Reddit, Forums, & Wiki's all are ubiquitous and makes researching and finding a good build easy.
Dark Souls 2 had "Soul Memory" which is based on the amount of souls you picked up. You can lose souls permanently in multiple ways from upgrading bad weapons then replacing them, dying multiple times before you can get to your bloodstain, and whatnot.
Soul Memory is how you are matched for pvp.
I'll take the old system over this new bullshit any day. Builds should be able to fail. The player should be able to fail. Sure, leave respeccing, allow the player to go back, but don't let absolutely everything work.
Thing about no-win situations, they are not actually challenging. The only thing an unwinnable situation does is artificially inflate playtime by making you replay blindly until you stumbled upon what you were missing. It fell out of fashion lately mainly because we can just look it up online now.
Overall, what it comes down to is incredibly lazy design on their part. They build multilevel interlocking paths/missions/character options, but at the end of the game NONE of it matters unless you have the special item from the NPC that you had no reason to talk with or whatever.
Also they tended to pigeonhole you into a small number, or even single, "intended" build(s), where your job is to magically figure out how they wanted you to beat the game, rather then allowing you to find your own solution. Meaning any and all customization options offered are otherwise pointless.
Those games were bullshit then and they're bullshit now. What they WANTED was you to play them repeatedly to artificially increase replay; what they actually end up with is a paralyzed player checking FAQs ahead of time to not waste tens of hours down the line. Respecs actually ALLOW experimentation
Amusingly one of the games that is viewed as one of the hardest games of all, the Dark Souls series, is actually a game that requires thinking and timing and learning patterns, which once mastered can make the game far easier, as opposed to using the shameless old bullet sponge technique.
rubberband physics in racing games, bullet sponge enemies in shooters, enemies simply blocking more in fighting games. Shit like that is fucking BS.
This is why I'm someone who plays on normal or just the first level of hard. I never play the hardest difficulty.
I am not a hardcore gamer, I am a filthy casual. I play games all the time, but I am nowhere near elite status. I care more about fun then challenge. I like a good challenge, and I like games that make me think or change my tactics. But a game that is hard to just be hard is utterly pointless.
Anyways, I think the real difference isn't that you can't screw up, but that you can't permanently screw up. For the most part, I say good riddance to the old ways. None of these "you missed this one step from the side quest on Disc 3? You can't finish it anymore." bullcrap.
@Xeranar: The diversity problem is part and parcel with the infinite GRifts. If D2 has something like that, it will see the same problem as well. In fact, you kind of already see it with everyone using hammerdins in pub games.
I find games these days allow you to fail at certain tasks due to minor player mistakes for example Mass Effect 2 had players grind loyalty points for every crew member and put points into ship stats. Do it wrong and they die. Reminds me of the SOTN true ending.
Diablo II had a scaling problem, Diablo III has a diversity problem. They're different problems because they solve different issues. Diablo II didn't want you using earlier skills (though why they didn't have you roll them in to higher ones from day one is beyond me).
"Those days"
You mean to use,"These Days".
It is pretty poor game design to do that to a player, especially if the gameplay doesn't allow a way to use skill to escape that situation.
Roguelikes are ok to be punishing, that's kind of the point, and I'm ok with that. A lot of other things though, I like to experiment and play around, find what's fun, find what works.
I like the way Skyrim works, there are many ways to play, but all of them are viable. You want to be a spellslinger? You can do that, you want to be a sword and board warrior? Ok. Sneaky archer? Sure.
D3 is nice because I can change build on the fly, and (cont)
I'm not saying totally open is the way to go either, I think there should be some restrictions, just saying there should be other viable options. I'm not saying everything should be equal, but they should be fairly close for parity. What's the point of having all the other stuff in there, if (cont)
I actually think that kind of play is narrow and restrictive. It squashes any creativity the player could bring to bear, in favor of a single playstyle. When you have a whole system and world to play around in, being forced into doing something a specific way to win really kills the immersion.(cont)
Any roguelike. Stuck with no way out ahoy. Oftentimes not even through your own fault.
My special mention goes to FTL, which has about a dozen ship configurations that are totally fun to play the game with, like hit-and-run fighter. And then there's an unfleeable mothership at the end. Derp.
That part hasn't actually changed, there's a lot of games where you can end up in losing situations. You're just stuck playing Blizzard games, which have as their core ideology that challenging situations are not fun.
If you are looking for a game that can be in a lose-lose situation, give Path of Exile a try. I'd just suggest to start out with a build-guide for your first couple of times.
I kinda like how games are not too losable. As an adult, I don't have as much time as I had when I was little to play around. Respecs and the Skyrim method of letting you master absolutely every skill is the way to go. :P
