Diablo 3 - Miscellaneous Roundup

If it's a Diablo game then no, it isn't.c Diablo 1 and 2 was pretty shitty played online, most people either played it on single player or muliplayer via LAN. Diablo 3 seems to focus on online play which was never what Diablo was about. If you want an online game you play WOW, if you want a single player game you play Diablo. Just one of the reasons Diablo 3 is pretty shitty.

I admit I was very late to the party. I tried Diablo II because I never had before and wanted to see what it was. Of course it was still being actively played years after its release. I always considered Diablo as meant to be a co-op online game (with some PvP thrown in). I had much more fun online, anyway. Single-player, it seemed to me to be a pretty dull affair, tacked on. I don't know, your mileage may vary, I guess.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,915
Location
The Netherlands
What I fear about this always online aspect of Diablo 3 is the potential wave it can create. There’s a general consensus between the publishers that PC only games can’t sell well because of the piracy level. This model can be copied by other companies in the future. Diablo 3’s first day sales already justifies this. So we will see more always-online games in the future.

I agree - but we already have them here : They are called "games sold by Steam".

Interesting is, that Ubi Soft has gotten so much decline in sales because of the "always on" policy - and yet ActiBlizzard manages to enforce it fully through !
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,908
Location
Old Europe
Interesting is, that Ubi Soft has gotten so much decline in sales because of the "always on" policy - and yet ActiBlizzard manages to enforce it fully through !

Like anything else, times change and so is people perception: the people buying D3 are mostly PC gamers (and probably D1 and D2 players) and those people are now accustomed to offline steam play for single player games, GoG and the DRM free indie move. So online only play no longer appeals to people and they will start to voice this strongly and then things might change. UBi certainly changed their policy, for example you don't require constant online connection for their recent assassins creed games and upcoming pc games like Ghost recon.

The piracy excuse is becoming like a broken, old record.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Messages
2,818
Location
United Kingdom
I agree - but we already have them here : They are called "games sold by Steam".

Yes.. and no.. I can play Steam games fine without an Internet connection, by going into offline mode. I have no issues with Valve's DRM scheme. Games seem to run OK, I can play them offline if I want to, and I appreciate that the games update themselves when I'm not looking (assuming I choose to leave Steam open in taskbar, which I don't always do).

Blizzard's approach is completely different. They are treating Diablo 3 as an MMO in everything but name. When you purchase D3 you are purchasing a service... i.e., a right to play their game for as long as they choose to support the game on their servers. It's essentially Guild Wars without the massively multiplayer towns.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
333
Location
Ynys Afallach
I admit I was very late to the party. I tried Diablo II because I never had before and wanted to see what it was. Of course it was still being actively played years after its release. I always considered Diablo as meant to be a co-op online game (with some PvP thrown in). I had much more fun online, anyway. Single-player, it seemed to me to be a pretty dull affair, tacked on. I don't know, your mileage may vary, I guess.

Online play was ruined because of cheating and item hacking, so people tended to stay offline and play with their friends through LAN. It's one of the reasons Blizzard brought in the always online thing which I have to admit goes a long way to fixing this problem even though I hate the concept.

Also, if you think that single-player Diablo was dull then I'd have to say that Diablo type games may not be your thing.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
118
Also, if you think that single-player Diablo was dull then I'd have to say that Diablo type games may not be your thing.

Well, of course the game was old by then, so technically it wasn't impressive. I was impressed by the feel of the game, but the randomness of multiplayer interaction was kind of cool. People helped me through the campaign and a few times an ass came around half role-playingly PvP killing me a couple of times, which was cool. I don't know, exploring dungeons seems more fun with a few people around.

P.S. I've enjoyed a number of other action RPGs, but those were more modern by the standards of those times, so I guess they came over better.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,915
Location
The Netherlands
For someone who's never played any of the diablo or torchlight games, can anyone explain the massive popularity? Is it the nostalgia factor for people who played the previous games?

The gameplay looks terribly repetitive judging by the videos I've seen. It's difficult for me to even tell the difference between these games.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
1,477
Location
Chocovania
For someone who's never played any of the diablo or torchlight games, can anyone explain the massive popularity? Is it the nostalgia factor for people who played the previous games?

The gameplay looks terribly repetitive judging by the videos I've seen. It's difficult for me to even tell the difference between these games.
The challenge isn't repetitive, but your actions are. By that I mean, yes, you're just clicking to move, clicking on bad guys to whack them, clicking on skills to use them etc. just like any other aRPG. But just as soon as you get used to one creature, a different one is introduced, or more of them are and you discover your tactics vs 1 have to change to survive several, or a champion variety comes along with different strengths/weaknesses. Each change maybe requires you to have a bit more powerful character, use slightly different tactics, equip/use different items, use different skills, configure different runes etc.

That progression/evolution of challenge as you play through a game is almost impossible to show on videos or describe in reviews. I would imagine it's also quite hard to get right as a studio - but, and this is why they are popular, Blizzard appear to be very good at nailing it, while other games that appear functionally identical usually don't hit the same mark.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,877
Online play was ruined because of cheating and item hacking, so people tended to stay offline and play with their friends through LAN. It's one of the reasons Blizzard brought in the always online thing which I have to admit goes a long way to fixing this problem even though I hate the concept.

Also, if you think that single-player Diablo was dull then I'd have to say that Diablo type games may not be your thing.

No, I agree with Thaurin here. When I played Diablo II + LOD many years ago, it was mostly on Battle.net. I only played one character offline and got bored pretty quick.

I actually started playing a few games with a friend on LAN now as well. I did two run-throughs to act IV alone, but then got bored of it.

Playing with people is more fun for me, but I still would like to be able to play single-player once in a while on the train or plane or bus and that isn't possible with DIII
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,177
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
Playing with people is more fun for me, but I still would like to be able to play single-player once in a while on the train or plane or bus and that isn't possible with DIII

Depends on the person, after playing many MMO's over years you soon get sick and tired of being messed about by randomers...

I played Diablo over the LAN with a friend and it was awesome! :biggrin:

I still loved and completed the single player game though.

Daniel.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
732
Location
England
For someone who's never played any of the diablo or torchlight games, can anyone explain the massive popularity? Is it the nostalgia factor for people who played the previous games?

The gameplay looks terribly repetitive judging by the videos I've seen. It's difficult for me to even tell the difference between these games.

I've just gone through a few games of DII with a friend of mine and yes it's repetitive.

BUT it's just plain old : Start weak, get stronger, kill things faster, enemies get stronger, kill more, get stronger, kill things faster... Which is exactly the kind of entertainment I want when I don't want to think much :)

Some people however do think much more about this and also are very gear oriented, so they try and complete sets and match items. I just run around killing things, leveling up and killing more things, but it's fun :)
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,177
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
The challenge isn't repetitive, but your actions are. By that I mean, yes, you're just clicking to move, clicking on bad guys to whack them, clicking on skills to use them etc. just like any other aRPG. But just as soon as you get used to one creature, a different one is introduced, or more of them are and you discover your tactics vs 1 have to change to survive several, or a champion variety comes along with different strengths/weaknesses. Each change maybe requires you to have a bit more powerful character, use slightly different tactics, equip/use different items, use different skills, configure different runes etc.

That progression/evolution of challenge as you play through a game is almost impossible to show on videos or describe in reviews. I would imagine it's also quite hard to get right as a studio - but, and this is why they are popular, Blizzard appear to be very good at nailing it, while other games that appear functionally identical usually don't hit the same mark.

This.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
850
Location
CA, USA
But is it worth $65? I will want to play it, but not for that price…

I dunno. I think video games are so far and away the best value for your entertainment dollar out there, so as long as a game doesn't suck, it's hard not to get your money's worth. If you break it down to dollars per hour of entertainment, I'd say D3 is a resounding "yes" to the "is it worth it" question. I've only played 7 hours, and I'm already in the neighborhood of a movie ticket value.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
850
Location
CA, USA
I dunno. I think video games are so far and away the best value for your entertainment dollar out there, so as long as a game doesn't suck, it's hard not to get your money's worth. If you break it down to dollars per hour of entertainment, I'd say D3 is a resounding "yes" to the "is it worth it" question. I've only played 7 hours, and I'm already in the neighborhood of a movie ticket value.

Is this a game that you will end up playing for hundreds of hours?
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
1,477
Location
Chocovania
Wow, I'm not sure if I've ever played a game for hundreds of hours. Well, probably World of Warcraft, but I'm not entirely sure that I'm proud of that fact.

In terms of value, it's always a question of both quantity and quality, as well as expectations. As Chamr said, we pay $20 for popcorn, soda and a movie (at least here). So if I compared it to that, I'd only need 6 hours of entertainment to get a good value. But it's not quite the same experience, I wouldn't pay $60 for a 6 hour game. It's all just a question of whether the experience is worth it to you. If a game lasts 20 hours and costs $60, but I really enjoy it, then I'm fine with that investment, just like I'm fine with the 2 hour $20 movie trip.

Anyway in my purely subjective opinion, D3 seems quite worth it to me so far, and I expect to get much more then 20 hours out of it (but time will tell).
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
2,163
Some of us don't go to movie theaters very often because we don't think they are worth it, so that analogy doesn't help. :/

A proper comparison, is something like Skyrim that provided many more hours of enjoyment per buck, for me at least. It's a game. Not a movie.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,679
Location
Studio City, CA
It's not a better comparison because you've picked a rare game for comparison that has more content than virtually any other offline game, which is skewing the result. Skyrim is not a common experience. If you insist on making your value comparison with the very, very best available in terms of sheer hours-of-content, that's your choice but you'll be more often disappointed than not.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
Back
Top Bottom