Diablo 3 - More Coverage

Wow, people are taking this very personally.

Too much "crusade" about this for my tastes - it's almost religious.

Blizzard are big now. They're about money, and they want more money. That's a shock

The question is if they can still make games worth the money they want for it. 50$ for Diablo 3? If it's ANYTHING like Diablo 1 or 2 - it will have MONTHS of content.

That's why I'll pay for it and gladly too. I'm not deluded enough to think they'll force me to interact with other people if I don't want to.

Do I think the online infrastructure will be "worth it"? To me, probably. To many singleplayer-only people? Probably not.

But the game will still be worth the money - AND more, if we assume Blizzard can still make games worth a damn.

If you're principally against the online infrastructure - then by all means don't support it. But let's not invent paranoid delusional scenarios to support our simple points.

Ubisoft DRM was a travesty - because they used it for STRICTLY singleplayer environments. There was NO reason apart from anti-piracy. That may or may not be a good reason - but I thought it was incredibly inconvenient. I still bought AC2 and Silent Hunter 5 though - because the games were great. Well, AC2 turned out to be not so great, but thems the breaks.

D3 will have an online infrastructure for a very multiplayer-oriented game. COULD they have a singleplayer offline version only? Of course they could.

But they'd be doing it for a small minority and not for themselves. They're most likely not in business to satisfy the minority - and expecting them to be, is pretty stupid.

We have to look towards indie developers and middle-market developers for that. Even they are often not about anything but themselves. That's human nature, unfortunately.

Say what you want this company is dead to me. All the people from blizzard pre-wow days are gone and thank god they make games somewhere else. The company is to MMO focused. Just imagine if Bethesda and Bioware went this route also.

We have to look towards indie developers and middle-market developers for that. Even they are often not about anything but themselves. That's human nature, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

Believe me I will with Torchlight 2/Grim Dawn and not counting others there's no shortage of any rpgs to play next year.

To each his own.

Personally, I don't think the AAA industry owes me anything whatsoever. I might not like what they're doing in general - but they still make the occasional great game.

I have no issue with people differing, though. I like to speak up against what I consider harmful developments in the industry - just to have my two cents heard.

If people want to boycott Bliz entirely, I can accept that.

DArtagnan said:

Personally, I don't think the AAA industry owes me anything whatsoever. I might not like what they're doing in general - but they still make the occasional great game.

Click to expand...

Well, they owe me - value for every game I pay for. In this case, they are lowering value of the product I receive for regular amount of money, to minimize the losses from piracy (and from reselling the games, I expect). No value in return. And no, social multiplayer crap is of no value to many of us - even if it was, it wouldn't require CONSTANT connection and server-side character saving.

Daddy32 said:

Well, they owe me - value for every game I pay for. In this case, they are lowering value of the product I receive for regular amount of money, to minimize the losses from piracy (and from reselling the games, I expect). No value in return. And no, social multiplayer crap is of no value to many of us - even if it was, it wouldn't require CONSTANT connection and server-side character saving.

Click to expand...

Have you paid for this game?

I'm waiting for the next two SC2 expansions so I can say I told you so to people defending the game model. No more offline play for those games either I bet. Maybe an auction house for faction powers and upgrades will be next also. Yes I can see it now get money by selling maps.

Couchpotato said:

I'm waiting for the next two SC2 expansions so I can say I told you so. No more offline play for those games either I bet. Maybe an auction house for faction powers and upgrades will be next also. Yes I can see it now get money by selling maps.

Click to expand...

You told me so?

Why would such things be a surprise to me?

I fully expect Blizzard to make the same kinds of decisions they've been making for ages.

I have no interest in Starcraft 2, though. To me, it feels like a visual upgrade of a 12 year old game. Boooooooring.

That was probably due to not wanting to deviate from the original and piss off the fanbase. That's why I'm surprised by the major changes in Diablo 3.

I want to see these reports that this is what the fans want. Most forums I frequent have mixed views. Hell there is even a boycott on Facebook now.

Couchpotato said:

That was probably due to not wanting to deviate from the original and piss off the fanbase. That's why I'm surprised by the major changes in Diablo 3.

Click to expand...

The Starcraft fanbase is somewhat different, as it's a HIGHLY competitive game played in several big-deal tournaments.

As for Diablo 3 - you must remember they no longer have the Blizzard North people. Bliz North invented Diablo and I don't think the new Blizzard really understands or particularly cares about the core paradigm. They certainly don't seem to think of it in the same way.

But I still think it looks very interesting - and I happen to love the art direction. If there's one thing Blizzard can do - it's create atmosphere and make a balanced and thought out design. Doesn't mean it's a great design - but at least it will be consistent and entertaining to a certain extent.

I just love the genre to bits, which is why I know I won't be able to stay away.

I don't actually believe it will be a particularly great game - but I think it will most definitely be worth a measly 50$.

I want to see these reports that this is what the fans want. Most forums I frequent have mixed views. Hell there is even a boycott on Facebook now.

Click to expand...

Oh, I doubt very many people actually WANT this online-only environment.

But it's not about what people want. It's about what people want the most.

I see both sides and can understand there views but hell I'm a grumpy old gamer who is starting to feel like a dinosaur.

Hate to say it but my passion for gaming is on the decline. At least I have Skyrim/Risen 2/ME3 and a couple other games to look forward to.

Your right about the middle segment of developers appealing to me more as time goes on. Especially Piranha Bytes for there Gothic and Risen Series.

Couchpotato said:

I see both sides and can understand there views but hell I'm a grumpy old gamer who is starting to feel like a dinosaur.

Hate to say it but my passion for gaming is on the decline. At least I have Skyrim/Risen 2/ME3 and a couple other games to look forward to.

Click to expand...

I think the difference between you and I, is that I "accepted" how greed is driving the industry a looooong time ago.

So, I no longer get worked up about it.

About the only thing I get worked up about, is when the lies and the deceit gets to be too much.

I don't find Blizzard particularly deceitful. I think they're reasonably straight about what they're trying to do - and why they're doing it.

Maybe I'm wrong - but that's the gist of it.

I have a much bigger problem with Bioware PR - generally. They seem fully incapable of just simply stating: We don't CARE about enthusiast gamers. To my mind, they keep dancing around that basic and obvious truth.

To my mind, Blizzard ALWAYS went for the biggest audience. They ALWAYS made "pop" games. Great games, yeah. Fantastic art, yeah. But they never made intricate/deep cerebral games. Diablo 3 is just the natural evolution of their mindset.

Oh I accepted it but dont feel like rolling over for every company and accepting there crap. My views wont affect the market in anyway though and I sure those games will sell just based on brand loyalty.

Sadly even though I would love a Warcraft 4 with blizzard as they are now it wouldn't be the same.

Bioware's problem is there marketing and not admitting there flaws . Oh lets not forget the dismissal of anyone criticizing there games. Well that's all for now DArtagnan it's 4.30 am and I have to go to to work.

Couchpotato said:

Oh I accepted it but dont feel like rolling over for every company and accepting there crap. My views wont affect the market in anyway though and I sure those games will sell just based on brand loyalty.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone should "roll over" - we just have different demands and expectations from our entertainment

Sadly even though I would love a Warcraft 4 with blizzard as they are now it wouldn't be the same.

Click to expand...

Warcraft = Zzzzz - imo.

Bioware's problem is there marketing and not admitting there flaws . Oh lets not forget the dismissal of anyone criticizing there games. Well that's all for now DArtagnan it's 4.30 am and I have to go to to work.

Click to expand...

Have a nice day

DArtagnan said:

Wow, people are taking this very personally.

Too much "crusade" about this for my tastes - it's almost religious.

Click to expand...

Hey let's exaggerate the opposition's comments to make them look silly and therefore ourselves more rational. Woo-ha.

Do I think the online infrastructure will be "worth it"? To me, probably. To many singleplayer-only people? Probably not.

Click to expand...

The simple fact is they could easily have both. Diablo 2 had the online mode and the offline mode. 10 years later we're not capable of doing the same thing?

Ubisoft DRM was a travesty - because they used it for STRICTLY singleplayer environments. There was NO reason apart from anti-piracy. That may or may not be a good reason - but I thought it was incredibly inconvenient. I still bought AC2 and Silent Hunter 5 though - because the games were great. Well, AC2 turned out to be not so great, but thems the breaks.

Click to expand...

Most of those Ubisoft games had online play. They also has singleplayer. Hey guess what, so does Diablo 3. There is no difference except you personally don't give a shit because you only care about the multiplayer.

But they'd be doing it for a small minority and not for themselves. They're most likely not in business to satisfy the minority - and expecting them to be, is pretty stupid.

Click to expand...

Do you have any kind of official stats on the whole "small minority" thing or are you just making that shit up? I am fairly sure it is the latter. Like I said before, multiplayer fans always act like singleplayer is a minority, but they're making that up. You have NO idea. On the flipside I actually offered one of the few stats we have, where the Demigod developers revealed only 21% of players ever signed in to multiplayer, and that was a "multiplayer focused" game too.

As for forcing chat, they said it themselves, I didn't. Instead of mocking my concerns about it why not confront them?

Yours and the comments of others here are plain to see. I assume people can read.

If you don't think I'm being rational, that's fair. I don't see why not - though.

Most of those Ubisoft games had online play. They also has singleplayer. Hey guess what, so does Diablo 3. There is no difference except you personally don't give a shit because you only care about the multiplayer.

Click to expand...

Yeah, because having a multiplayer mode is definitely the same as being designed AROUND multiplayer.

I don't guage what's "right" or "wrong" based on personal preference. I try to be objective about things. Obviously, people care a great deal about playing these games in an isolated environment - and my point is that they still can - they just need to be online to do it.

Do you have any kind of official stats on the whole "small minority" thing or are you just making that shit up? I am fairly sure it is the latter. Like I said before, multiplayer fans always act like singleplayer is a minority, but they're making that up. You have NO idea. On the flipside I actually offered one of the few stats we have, where the Demigod developers revealed only 21% of players ever signed in to multiplayer, and that was a "multiplayer focused" game too.

As for forcing chat, they said it themselves, I didn't. Instead of mocking my concerns about it why not confront them?

Click to expand...

I'll give you a large icecream - somehow - if you can point out where they've said they intend to force you to chat, or that you can't completely ignore such functions if you want. Here's your chance to prove your claim.

I'm not talking about multiplayer vs singleplayer. I'm talking about willingness to be online at all times versus unwillingness to be online.

I just use my common sense about how many players are willing to accept this online environment versus those who hate it enough to NOT accept it.

Could I be wrong? Maybe - but we'll see how Diablo 3 does - and how many people refuse to pay for it. That should give us at least SOME idea of who's right here.

Obviously, we disagree about this game and what one can reasonably expect from the developers in the AAA industry.

I can deal with that. I see no value in trying to convince you that you're wrong.

My position should be clear to those who want to know what it is.

DArtagnan said:

Wow, people are taking this very personally.

Too much "crusade" about this for my tastes - it's almost religious.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's almost as bad as the backlash after the buggy release of Elemental: War of Magic!

DArtagnan said:

But it's not about what people want. It's about what people want the most.

Click to expand...

True enough. The gaming industry has educated their customers well, and now they won't mind jumping through a few loops in order to get their sweets.

coyote said:

Yeah, it's almost as bad as the backlash after the buggy release of Elemental: War of Magic!

Click to expand...

Yeah, being proven 100% right about that game makes me feel just like a fanatical crusader

It's STILL not even an average game - and you call it "buggy"? That's cute.

True enough. The gaming industry has educated their customers well, and now they won't mind jumping through a few loops in order to get their sweets.

Click to expand...

Would you really expect anything else?

DArtagnan said:

I have no interest in Starcraft 2, though. To me, it feels like a visual upgrade of a 12 year old game. Boooooooring.

Click to expand...

Funnily enough, from some comments it seems several people around here want the same from Diablo 3

I'm happy with both approaches as long as the final product is fun to play. SC2 is really fun, and I expect D3 will be as well - looking forward to it

Okay maybe I missed something in the video I watched but to me it does look like basically a visual upgrade to D1/D2, albeit with secure and monetized trading.

I wasn't exactly blown away by the visuals. In fact, I would say they were on par with other recent hack and slash titles that launched at budget prices.

Diablo never had top notch graphics for any version, highest resolution they (officially) achieves was 800*600 if I remember correct on D2. For D3 they seem to be okay, blizzard was always more worried about gameplay and balance anyway... we'll have to see for this one I guess.