Diablo III refund.

Originally Posted by zahratustra
Let me draw your attention to those sentences chamr. They prove that JDR has a point.
If somebody likes D3 less than you than they will criticize some things that you consider are just right. So, if you consider that their criticism is misguided, it means that you seems to think that your bench mark it the only legit one and anything below it is just bitching…

*sigh* c'mon guys. We're all smarter than this, right? I'm obviously not saying that any criticism is over-criticism. Please don't put words in my mouth. Thanks.

Let me be explicit: criticism in general is A-OK by me. *thumbs up and a smile!* I in no way believe D3 (or any game, for that matter) is infallible. What I'm trying to draw attention to (and thought I did with my GB review example) is that what I'm seeing in the case of D3 is an unusual amount of hyperbole and stretching of some criticisms to the breaking point and beyond.

Giving this more thought, it should be expected that a game as hotly anticipated for so long as D3 coming from a big shot developer/publisher like Blizzard is going to result in over-criticism as a matter of natural balance. It's human nature to want to knock the big guy down a few pegs or seem nonplussed and above it all in the face of enthusiasm or excitement over a big event like the release of D3. Even if doing so results in exaggeration and false equivalencies. I think I'm less annoyed by it now. But I'll probably continue to point it out…

Well it should have been an improvement over D2 after all these years of development. For many, it appears it isn't. Those folks have a right to complain, especially for $60.

So… what. Are you trying to counter balance that negativity by resorting to hyperbole yourself? It sure seems that way. It's cool to be enthusiastic about the game, but you're being just as unreasonable as the Blizz bashers.

edit: this was directed at chamr btw.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
Well it should have been an improvement over D2 after all these years of development. For many, it appears it isn't. Those folks have a right to complain, especially for $60.

Not only is it not an improvement, but I would go so far as to venture it's a downgrade.

Lackluster loot:

• Unique items tend to suck
• Far fewer set items
• No runewords
• Current-level drops suck and force one to use the AH (though they're looking into this at least)

Erratic balance
No movement possible w/ map open
Only 4 person multiplayer.

Additionally, Battlenet 2.0 sucks, plain and simple. Blizzard's success all those years ago lied in the implementation of (free) chat rooms. If not for the thousands and thousands of people chatting online in both public and private rooms, their games would not have been as successful and the company would have never fostered the fervent following that it has. And, IMO, they would have never garnered the WoW subscriptions that they did.

There's apparently some sort of item code cheat that has been revealed by reddit now. I don't know the exact details. Now you won't even have to go the the AH. Just edit the stats on your weapons yourself, Yay!

Originally Posted by Drithius
Not only is it not an improvement, but I would go so far as to venture it's a downgrade.

Lackluster loot:

• Unique items tend to suck
• Far fewer set items
• No runewords
• Current-level drops suck and force one to use the AH (though they're looking into this at least)

They might be looking but, since they get a cut from every AH transaction, I wonder how motivated they are to do anything about it…

Originally Posted by Merlock
Now you won't even have to go the the AH. Just edit the stats on your weapons yourself, Yay!

Until Blizzard patches it out?

Originally Posted by Drithius
Not only is it not an improvement, but I would go so far as to venture it's a downgrade.

Lackluster loot:

• Unique items tend to suck
• Far fewer set items
• No runewords
• Current-level drops suck and force one to use the AH (though they're looking into this at least)

Erratic balance
No movement possible w/ map open
Only 4 person multiplayer.

Additionally, Battlenet 2.0 sucks, plain and simple. Blizzard's success all those years ago lied in the implementation of (free) chat rooms. If not for the thousands and thousands of people chatting online in both public and private rooms, their games would not have been as successful and the company would have never fostered the fervent following that it has. And, IMO, they would have never garnered the WoW subscriptions that they did.

Did you get your money back? I mean, it's totally unfair of them to take your money if you played something like 30 hours on the game…I feel your pain.

God, this gets old.

Yes, I imagine trolling must get old. Hopefully, you'll outgrow it… one day.

Meanwhile, the package is still en route to California.

Originally Posted by Drithius
Yes, I imagine trolling must get old. Hopefully, you'll outgrow it… one day.

The package is still en route to California.

Trolling because I think you are taking advantage here? Played a game for some 40 hours got bored and got your money back and then cried like a baby? Sure, sorry you feel trolled. Keep up the good fight.

Originally Posted by Merlock
So… what. Are you trying to counter balance that negativity by resorting to hyperbole yourself? It sure seems that way. It's cool to be enthusiastic about the game, but you're being just as unreasonable as the Blizz bashers.

Um… how, exactly?

Well it should have been an improvement over D2 after all these years of development. For many, it appears it isn't. Those folks have a right to complain, especially for $60.

This is a legitimate criticism. I have no beef with that point of view. May not agree with it, but I don't consider it overboard that some folks say D2 is better than D3.

You guys just aren't listening. My point is that saying the game is unplayable, sucks, or, perhaps most absurdly, something you deserve a refund for after playing for dozens of hours, is exaggeration at best. It's like saying the latest BMW is an undrive-able PoS because it only comes in grey and not black or because they don't offer a model with stick shift anymore like they used to in the old days.

I'll try this one more time, and then I guess I'll just give up. There is nothing wrong with rational debate about the merits of the design decisions Blizzard made with D3 and whether they went in the right direction with the game mechanics or not. But that's a far cry from some of the silly-talk I'm seeing out there. I just can't take anyone seriously that's saying the game is an abject failure in any way. On an objective level, that's just plain silly.

Are you saying the game can't suck for some people, or that some people aren't finding it unplayable for one reason or another?

By telling people they're absurd for holding a different opinion, you're actually claiming to have a hold on the objective truth.

Sure, it may be exaggerated - but you really have no way of making sure. I can easily see how the game might suck for some people, and I can easily see how it could be considered unplayable - given the login issues and server downtime.

I think the game is decent enough, overall, but the more I play - the more I realise that it's actually a major disappointment.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Are you saying the game can't suck for some people, or that some people aren't finding it unplayable for one reason or another?

By telling people they're absurd for holding a different opinion, you're actually claiming to have a hold on the objective truth.

No, I'm claiming there is an objective truth, like "the sky is blue" or "Beethoven's 9th does not suck". Beethoven's 9th may suck for you personally because you don't like classical music, or perhaps it didn't meet your personal needs for some reason, or you decided that you prefer the Baroque Period over the Romantic Period, and that's all well and good. But that doesn't mean it objectively sucks.

The objective truth is that D3 does not suck.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Sure, it may be exaggerated - but you really have no way of making sure. I can easily see how the game might suck for some people,

Objective v subjective. I'm not arguing people's personal experiences with the game. I'm arguing against broad statements that the game is a failure on some basic, generally accepted level.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
and I can easily see how it could be considered unplayable - given the login issues and server downtime.

Baloney. This is a good example of stretching a criticism to the breaking point. They had a rough launch. Also, it's an always on game which means you can't play during maintenance windows. But making a broad statement like "it's unplayable!" is ridiculous. Objectively ridiculous.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I think the game is decent enough, overall, but the more I play - the more I realise that it's actually a major disappointment.

Sorry to hear that. While I may end up in the same boat as I play more, I can not ignore the fact that I've already gotten 50+ hours of fun out of the game. Even if I become disenchanted later on, I simply can't come up with any way to rationalize the idea that I haven't gotten my money's worth or that the game wasn't fun or that it failed in some significant way. Let's just say I won't be asking for a refund. ;-)

Sorry, you've lost credibility there Chamr. There's nothing objective about Beethoven's 9th that makes it not suck (please, highlight the precise reason it doesn't if that's the case), it is simply subjectively liked by a lot of people. Large numbers of subjective approval doesn't objectify anything, merely puts your opinion with or against a majority.

Originally Posted by chamr
you decided that you prefer the Baroque Period over the Romantic Period, and that's all well and good. But that doesn't mean it objectively sucks.

And you claiming that Diablo 3 doesn't suck does not make it an objective fact.

You've been reasonable until this point, but now you're just starting to look foolish.

The people who don't like the game have given their reasons why they don't enjoy it. I don't see anyone trying to make an argument that the game is objectively bad.

Originally Posted by chamr
No, I'm claiming there is an objective truth, like "the sky is blue" or "Beethoven's 9th does not suck". Beethoven's 9th may suck for you personally because you don't like classical music, or perhaps it didn't meet your personal needs for some reason, or you decided that you prefer the Baroque Period over the Romantic Period, and that's all well and good. But that doesn't mean it objectively sucks.

Ehm, there is no objective truth that we can verify - period. No one has ever been able to establish a single one, so please don't even try

As for the sky being blue - that's something we can accept as an everyday truth because we've agreed to certain words, rules, and concepts. Beethoven's music being good, however, has nothing to do with a truth - objective or otherwise. Some people think it sucks - and they can't be proven wrong - even within our own limited capacity for proof and demonstration.

The objective truth is that D3 does not suck.

It would be the first objective truth that we've verified - in that case. What's your proof? Proof != opinion.

Objective v subjective. I'm not arguing people's personal experiences with the game. I'm arguing against broad statements that the game is a failure on some basic, generally accepted level.

Well, we can agree that it's not objectively true either way. It's a matter of taste and personal preferences. If someone says the game sucks - I will assume he's talking about his own personal opinion. The same is true for people who says it's just perfect.

You, however, are specifically saying that it's objectively untrue that it sucks - which is a very, very fragile position

Baloney. This is a good example of stretching a criticism to the breaking point. They had a rough launch. Also, it's an always on game which means you can't play during maintenance windows. But making a broad statement like "it's unplayable!" is ridiculous. Objectively ridiculous.

Fortunately, you don't get to decide what's acceptable for other people. I can only assume you don't actually understand the concept of objective truth - because you seem like a reasonably smart person who would never even try to claim you knew what's objectively true - if you actually understood what that meant.

Sorry to hear that. While I may end up in the same boat as I play more, I can not ignore the fact that I've already gotten 50+ hours of fun out of the game. Even if I become disenchanted later on, I simply can't come up with any way to rationalize the idea that I haven't gotten my money's worth or that the game wasn't fun or that it failed in some significant way. Let's just say I won't be asking for a refund. ;-)

I'm not talking about getting my money's worth. That has a minimal bearing on what I consider a disappointment with a game like Diablo 3. It has quite a bit to live up to, beyond giving me a bit of fun for a few days.

I'm talking about a game that I've been waiting for, for 12 years - made by expert craftsmen with near-infinite resources and the opportunity to make exactly what they wanted to make.

They came up with a simplified and streamlined game that's fun in the short-term, but utterly falls apart in the long-term. Also, they completely failed to deliver one of the most important aspects of the genre: truly satisfying loot. All things considered, I think it's a massive failure when it comes to delivering a truly worthy sequel to Diablo 2.

No, I'm not talking about monetary success.

Originally Posted by zahratustra

Until Blizzard patches it out?

I would also not be surprised if Blizzard decides to ban people who hack the stats of weapons, or do any other form of scripting.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Ehm, there is no objective truth that we can verify - period. No one has ever been able to establish a single one, so please don't even try

As for the sky being blue - that's something we can accept as an everyday truth because we've agreed to certain words, rules, and concepts. Beethoven's music being good, however, has nothing to do with a truth - objective or otherwise. Some people think it sucks - and they can't be proven wrong - even within our own limited capacity for proof and demonstration.

It would be the first objective truth that we've verified - in that case. What's your proof? Proof != opinion.

[snip]

You, however, are specifically saying that it's objectively untrue that it sucks - which is a very, very fragile position

Fortunately, you don't get to decide what's acceptable for other people. I can only assume you don't actually understand the concept of objective truth - because you seem like a reasonably smart person who would never even try to claim you knew what's objectively true - if you actually understood what that meant.

LOL! OK, I'm not interested in a philosophical battle over the academic meaning of "objective truth" in this thread, professor. ;-P I'm much more concerned in this thread with the more earthly, pragmatic matter of the extent of criticism D3 is receiving.

However, to put to bed the philosophical debate, I concede that on the intellectual plane, a case can be made that there is no such thing as "objective truth", only generally agreed to perceptions or uniquely personal experiences. Can't say I agree, but that doesn't really matter right now. :-)

P.S. OK, I can't resist: you do realize the irony of stating that there is no such thing as "objective truth" as if that idea were objectively true, don't you?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I'm not talking about getting my money's worth. That has a minimal bearing on what I consider a disappointment with a game like Diablo 3. It has quite a bit to live up to, beyond giving me a bit of fun for a few days.

I'm talking about a game that I've been waiting for, for 12 years - made by expert craftsmen with near-infinite resources and the opportunity to make exactly what they wanted to make.

They came up with a simplified and streamlined game that's fun in the short-term, but utterly falls apart in the long-term. Also, they completely failed to deliver one of the most important aspects of the genre: truly satisfying loot. All things considered, I think it's a massive failure when it comes to delivering a truly worthy sequel to Diablo 2.

No, I'm not talking about monetary success.

I have no problem with your use of "massive failure" because you qualified it with "when it comes to delivering a truly worthy sequel to Diablo 2." Again, this is different from the criticism I'm criticising (ha!) that stops at failure in a general sense without qualifying it in a way that is either satisfactory or not hyperbole.

To be fair, however, you've struck on the one argument that I do believe can be made most strongly in favor of the position that D3 is a failure: the item system. They blew it. They sucked the fun out of Uniques and Sets and didn't include Runewords. Big, big mistakes. Big enough to ruin the game to the point of failure? Maybe for folks that had the expectation that they were going to play it for hundreds and hundreds of hours, but not for me. Don't get me wrong, it's a bummer, but it doesn't spoil the rest of the fun. At least not at 50+ hours in.

The good news is that Blizzard is acknowledging that they got Legandaries wrong and it is a relatively easy problem to fix. It remains to be seen if they fix it to our satisfaction, but I see good reason to be optimistic.

My very subjective opinion right now is that D3 as it stands now is significantly better then D2 was when it first came out. It is not, however, more fun then D2 was after many rounds of patches and an expansion. I guess the question is, which of those comparisons is more fair? I'm not sure that it has an easy answer.

I do think many people have a somewhat rosey view of the original out of the box D2, or even of D2 in general. I loved D2 but it took them a long time to really get some things right. Some complain about some balance issues in D3, but D2 was so much more poorly balanced that it's not even in the same realm. People forget about the massive power difference in characters, or the fact that half of the skills in the game were completely useless except as talent tree filler. Eventually they did add a synergy system that somewhat fixed this, but that took them years….most people had completely stopped playing by that point.

Anyway overall I'm enjoying the game, it's not a true classic yet butI think it will only get better in time. It's certainly not for everyone though, just like every other game ever made.

Originally Posted by Fnord
I would also not be surprised if Blizzard decides to ban people who hack the stats of weapons, or do any other form of scripting.

I wouldn't be surprised either…

Originally Posted by chamr
P.S. OK, I can't resist: you do realize the irony of stating that there is no such thing as "objective truth" as if that idea were objectively true, don't you?

That would be an irony, but that's not what I've been saying.

I said there's been no objective truth that we can VERIFY or ESTABLISH. Believe me, I wish that wasn't the case. Any truth we've "established" so far - is simply theory based on our capacity to perceive and process - which may or may not be sufficient for objective truth.

I tend to believe that objective truth exists - and I live to establish it, but so far I've been unsuccessful.

I have no problem with your use of "massive failure" because you qualified it with "when it comes to delivering a truly worthy sequel to Diablo 2." Again, this is different from the criticism I'm criticising (ha!) that stops at failure in a general sense without qualifying it in a way that is either satisfactory or not hyperbole.

But why are you assuming people don't have qualifications? People don't always have the disposition or capacity to express their reasons - but they tend to have them all the same. They may not be reasons you agree with - but they're usually there.

To be fair, however, you've struck on the one argument that I do believe can be made most strongly in favor of the position that D3 is a failure: the item system. They blew it. They sucked the fun out of Uniques and Sets and didn't include Runewords. Big, big mistakes. Big enough to ruin the game to the point of failure? Maybe for folks that had the expectation that they were going to play it for hundreds and hundreds of hours, but not for me. Don't get me wrong, it's a bummer, but it doesn't spoil the rest of the fun. At least not at 50+ hours in.

Yeah, it's a pretty huge negative. That, and the total lack of replayability in terms of classes. I don't enjoy Hardcore mode (I think it's a silly way of creating tension) - and neither does the vast majority based on statistics. So, they messed up on two aspects that I consider vitally important for the genre.

The good news is that Blizzard is acknowledging that they got Legandaries wrong and it is a relatively easy problem to fix. It remains to be seen if they fix it to our satisfaction, but I see good reason to be optimistic.

Yeah, they do seem to appreciate that something isn't right - though I've yet to see them state, plainly, that their item design is poor. They seem too arrogant for that realisation.

Problem with Blizzard is that they don't have any visionary designers. They have craftsmen and experienced developers.

Their design process is basically about taking from other games, and then doing endless "trial-and-error" design through thorough iterative testing with constant feedback.

That's great for moment-to-moment gameplay and it's great if you actually understand the games you're stealing from. It's not so great if you trust your designers/testers to give you solid long-term feedback based on a lack of vision.

They REALLY need a true visionary designer calling the shots over there - because they're being way too trusting when it comes to the iterative process. At least, if you ask me.

It must be said, though, that if you ask enough people what they want - enough times - and you give it to them, exactly as they ask for - you're going to have a lot of happy customers.

So, there's no question they know how to make money - and they know how to make people happy in the short-term. The thing with people, though, is that they generally don't think beyond the short-term - and that's a pretty big minus when designing a Diablo game.

Long-term and "brilliant" gameplay is not something you stumble upon during iterative testing. That's something you need a person (or persons) with a vision for.