"Restrictive measures are always the worst of decisions. Even if it is the most antecipated game of the year".

Intelligent people will understand what I mean.

Oh, burn.

But, wait. You forgot to open your parentheses: (:)

I'm not anticipating that game at all. Just get to the point.

---

Q u o t e:
I guess I'm stupid then.

---

You're not stupid. What I'm talking about is: We should learn with other peoples mistakes. That's all.

I'm not talking about D3 or any feature it has or not (you know, my crystal ball needs a new battery). Nothing has been confirmed yet. However, this is the General discussion forum.

---

Q u o t e:
But I know how to spell anticipated! ;)

---

OH MY GOD! Einstein lives!

Just kidding. English is not my first language, so mistakes happen. Thanks for clarifying!

Durr?

Restrictive measures being the worst of decisions? Well, when it comes to giving the consumer what they're asking for, that's often true. DRM wasn't a big sell for much the same reason. People will choose what is least of a nuisance, etc etc.

But I would hesitate to apply it to everything, especially in a game. If restrictive measures are always bad, then that means everything you do should allow the user to do whatever they want. The problem is that isn't actually a game; that's a sandbox. Sandboxes can be fun too (see: Garry's Mod), but Diablo 3 isn't in that market.

Basically, to make anything a challenge, you need to impose restrictions. If you weren't restricted from being able to get spells that did 9 million damage in a 10 mile radius, the game wouldn't exactly be difficult or interesting (well, if the effects were pretty enough it might keep you mildly entertained watching the fireworks for a few minutes, but that's about all I can say for it). Restrictions can also make things easier to play; for instance, if you could fly, the control system would need to be much more complex than simple click-to-move. Similarly, while a smaller skill set can be less flexible than a vast one, it is also less bewildering - anyone who has tried to build a D&D character using the full set of source-books available probably knows what I mean - and thus less difficult for a beginner to figure out how to make a decent build.

Restrictions are always trade-offs, of course, which means you can't throw them in carelessly (if no restrictions is a sandbox, all restrictions is a storybook). I don't think they're inherently bad though.

I could use some November Juliet

---

Q u o t e:
Restrictive measures being the worst of decisions? Well, when it comes to giving the consumer what they're asking for, that's often true. DRM wasn't a big sell for much the same reason. People will choose what is least of a nuisance, etc etc.

But I would hesitate to apply it to everything, especially in a game. If restrictive measures are always bad, then that means everything you do should allow the user to do whatever they want. The problem is that isn't actually a game; that's a sandbox. Sandboxes can be fun too (see: Garry's Mod), but Diablo 3 isn't in that market.

Basically, to make anything a challenge, you need to impose restrictions. If you weren't restricted from being able to get spells that did 9 million damage in a 10 mile radius, the game wouldn't exactly be difficult or interesting (well, if the effects were pretty enough it might keep you mildly entertained watching the fireworks for a few minutes, but that's about all I can say for it). Restrictions can also make things easier to play; for instance, if you could fly, the control system would need to be much more complex than simple click-to-move. Similarly, while a smaller skill set can be less flexible than a vast one, it is also less bewildering - anyone who has tried to build a D&D character using the full set of source-books available probably knows what I mean - and thus less difficult for a beginner to figure out how to make a decent build.

Restrictions are always trade-offs, of course, which means you can't throw them in carelessly (if no restrictions is a sandbox, all restrictions is a storybook). I don't think they're inherently bad though.

---

Well said! It's not black or white. It's a game of finding that line between too restrictive and amazing gameplay.

---

Q u o t e:
I'm not talking about D3 or any feature it has or not (you know, my crystal ball needs a new battery). Nothing has been confirmed yet. However, this is the General discussion forum.

---

It's actually a Diablo 3 general discussion forum, there's the Off-topic somewhere in the forums.

---

Q u o t e:

It's actually a Diablo 3 general discussion forum, there's the Off-topic somewhere in the forums.

---

+1

Now that we've got that cleared up, hopefully Bashiok will decide to post in a more useful thread.

---

Q u o t e:
Now that we've got that cleared up, hopefully Bashiok will decide to post in a more useful thread.

---

Now I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain Bashiok posts when he has something to say. Whether or not he posts in this thread (or any thread) has no impact on whether or not he posts in any of the threads you (or anyone) would define as "useful."

It's never black or white, and people tend to forget that in the RIGHT circumstances, restrictions are not just good, but necessary.

---

Q u o t e:
Intelligent people will understand what I mean.

---

Way to insult just about everybody with your opinions.