Jay Wilson: Yeah, one of the lessons that we learned in development was people’s memories of Diablo II were way different than the reality of Diablo II. They remember all kinds of stuff that never actually happened in that game.
You silly people! Tell Jay you're sorry. All those things you enjoyed about Diablo II, you made them all up. Jay knows what you're up to!
Considering how many never-happened=that-way "memories" of other games we see popping up constantly...
Exaggeration over time is not an unusual internet phenomenon. Just watch how much better SWG's rep/revisionist history is now than it was while the game was actually still struggling for subs. Or hell, EQ or UO or DAoC for that matter; which have clearly all grown in rose-colored "epicness" over time.
He's got a point. Poorly stated one, and lord knows not one that excuses anything...but in terms of how gamers memory works, yes.
How often have you seen a claim that that is clearly mistaken? Not through malice on the author's part or faulty memory, necessarily, but simply being unaware that game Z also had feature Y and had it first?
WoW gets credit (from the WoW generation) for inventing a whole lot of game features that all considerably older than WoW is, for instance. So does Diablo.
Quiz (easy for us old guys, maybe, harder for people who never played another MMO before WoW):
Which MMO first featured instancing?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Originally posted by DaezAster No I dont think they have short tem memory but I'm sure there are plenty of people who rember that game fondly just like I do resident evil. That game was like 10 years a go and I'm sure some people still play it and for others it's a collection of fond memories. Everything aint as good as it used to be rosey tinted glasses and all that.
10 yrs ago since Resident Evil 1? Try about 15-16 yrs ago. I played it on Playstation in 1997
I was actually talking about diablo2 is LIKE 10 years old but used re1 as an example from my own experience.
That's fine. People can have selective memories. I don't deny that. However, that does not mean that everyone alwaysdoes. And that's where the problem lies in using the the "rose tinted" argument.
It's abused to the point of being meaningless. It shares the same status as saying "go back to WoW", to anyone who dislikes a MMO someone else is a fan of. It has as much intelletual weight as assuming someone only enjoys WoW because it's the only MMO they've ever played. It shares the same ignorance as assuming anyone who enjoys open world PvP stands around ganking newbies all day long. It's a lazy and ignorant non-argument used solely to dismiss a differing opinion instead of actually addressing it. It's an intellectually dishonest cop-out used to suit those people's needs and preserve their self-image.
I can not even begin to recount how many times someone has said that to me about FFXI, or Anarchy Online or any other older-school MMO I've played and have expressed an enjoyment of in the past. Whether I'm discussing the game directly, or using it as an example to illustrate a related point, someone almost inevitably comes along and says "Well, FFXI was never a very good game. You're just remembering it through nostalgia goggles, so your point is invalid". They're not making an argument by saying that. They're saying it to dismiss my point so they can avoid addressing it at all.
As I said in my post above, I remember my early experiences in FFXI quite well. I do not only cling to the things that support my "needs and self-image". I happen to value the accuracy and validity of information and so, I make it a point to remember the good along with the bad. Are there many people who will cherry-pick and selectively choose to remember only things that suit them? Absolutely. Some people do it knowingly and deliberately, because all that matters to them is "winning the argument". If "winning the argument" means having to cherry-pick details, then that's what they'll do.
And at the end of the day, you can't conveniently sum up "everyone" with quotes from manuals or books or individuals, because everyone does not fit the same mold. That's why you will never see me dismiss others' opinions as "being tinted by nostalgia", no matter how much I might disagree with them. I will never tell someone "no, the game wasn't that good, you're just remembering the good parts", because that would be embarassingly arrogant of me to do. The fact of the matter is, I don't know those people. I don't know what they remember or how they remember it. I don't know how they value those memories. And so, it is not my place to dismiss them just because they don't happen to fit my personal narrative of the situation.
That still wasn't what the article said, he just said that many people remember Diablo 2 darker and harder than what it really was. He never said that everyone remember it a ton better than what it was.
If you want to know how good an old game really was, just think how long you played it. If you played D2 a year it was a great game, if you played it for 3 weeks but remember it as amazing you might consider that something smells fishy.
We are discussing the interview with the devs and my opinion was that OP missunderstood the whole thing said in there.
Jay Wilson: Yeah, one of the lessons that we learned in development was people’s memories of Diablo II were way different than the reality of Diablo II. They remember all kinds of stuff that never actually happened in that game.
You silly people! Tell Jay you're sorry. All those things you enjoyed about Diablo II, you made them all up. Jay knows what you're up to!
Considering how many never-happened=that-way "memories" of other games we see popping up constantly...
Exaggeration over time is not an unusual internet phenomenon. Just watch how much better SWG's rep/revisionist history is now than it was while the game was actually still struggling for subs. Or hell, EQ or UO or DAoC for that matter; which have clearly all grown in rose-colored "epicness" over time.
He's got a point. Poorly stated one, and lord knows not one that excuses anything...but in terms of how gamers memory works, yes.
How often have you seen a claim that that is clearly mistaken? Not through malice on the author's part or faulty memory, necessarily, but simply being unaware that game Z also had feature Y and had it first?
WoW gets credit (from the WoW generation) for inventing a whole lot of game features that all considerably older than WoW is, for instance. So does Diablo.
Quiz (easy for us old guys, maybe, harder for people who never played another MMO before WoW):
Which MMO first featured instancing?
If you mean instancing in the sense of multiple copies or "channels" of the same area(s) to balance out player-load, then Anarchy Online would be my answer. Although I guess you could say their mission areas were also instanced, and randomly generated! I'm not aware of any other MMO that had that before AO. Could well be wrong on that though.
One quick bit about people being mistaken that one game had a feature before another. That's simply a matter of someone having not played or payed much attention to literally every game that's out there, or what its features were, which is not a "sin" in itself. I doubt there's anyone who actually is that knowledgable. But, never say never. The mistake those people make is failing to qualify their statements by saying something like "There's no other game that does "x", instead of saying, "there's no other game I'm aware of that does "x".
It's not the same as someone actually having played a given game and remembering certain experiential things about it. Personally, when I see someone whose description of something seems more "epic" than what I remember it being, I chalk it up to that particular event or aspect simply having that much of an impact on them. There's been plenty of times where I've been blown away by something in a MMO that others weren't nearly as impressed by. Does that mean my memory of that event is faulty? Not at all. It just means my reaction wasn't the same.
Also, I wouldn't put mis-remembering factual information about a game, such as specific details of gameplay mechanics,in the same category as "rose-colored glasses" or "nostalgia goggles". Specific details of things can tend to escape us with time and inattention because such information is "dry". It doesn't necessary leave much of a footprint in our memories. Experiences, memories and events that had a personal impact on someone - for good or bad - tend to stick much better though. For example, I can't remember the specific stats of the Dragoon AF helmet from FFXI, but I can sure tell you how awesome the experience of obtaining it was.
I guess my primary concern when it comes to topics like this is that there's really 2 or 3 different possible things at play in a given situation where someone remembering a game they played years in the past doesn't match with somenoe else's experience or memory of it. Yet, there's a lot of people who will immediately lump all situations into the same category of "oh, you're just remembering that through a nostalgia filter", when that is not necessarily the case.
Oh rly. Well then perhaps my memory of a crappy D3 is not reality either.
Who'da thunk it.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
D3 was just pure fail. Jay can say whatever he wants but we all know what the reality is.
This ^
The fact that he even made that statement makes him look like a complete idiot. Yes, people's memories tend to distort things in one way or another. Yes, this means that their memory of Diablo 2 might be inaccurate.
Why on earth would you use that as basis for a new game? And why on earth was this a lesson for you?!
What people remembered about D2, and whether or not that is accurate, is completely irrelevant. You listen to the features people enjoyed from the game, improve upon them, and expand upon them. Some developers make this process out to be way more complicated than it really is. It does take a lot of work, but it's not all that complicated. No need to get all metaphysical and overthink things.
It has some truth to it. I went back to play Tomb Raider on my ps and was like, omg this game sucks. Back then I absolutely loved the game lol.
The game doesn't suck, it's just dated (other games have expanded on it's mechanics to the point where it now feels obscelete).
I also went through a time where I went back through old PS1 games. It because very clear that certain games still held up, while others now felt awful. Even with poor graphics there are certain games I still enjoy from the original PS.
I've been playing Diablo 2 for 8 years, i played it just yesterday.
I quit Diablo 3 after a week, of playing like a hour a day, i got maybe 3 hours in the first time i played, and it just bored the living bejesus out of me.
Yup.
Funny, I fired up D2 a few weeks back and it was pretty fun fooling around with 3 different warrior builds, a couple Necros and other toons I had on there. And there were no rose colored glasses, that I could find. (Maybe I should look in the RMAH in D3 next time? :P)
A what was the biggest thing that hit me? When I hit a level, I actually had some CHOICES. What a radical concept....
(And of course I did not need to log onto some crappy b.net servers to get hacked, or have the RMAH in my face.)
As to the OP and dev statements, it sounds like a bunch of whiny excuse making to me, about how the next game in the franchise is not as " well received" as the last one.
That is what happens when the revenue model (aka making the game around the need for the RMAH) the center of design priorities, as opposed to gameplay.
Originally posted by Agoden I've been playing Diablo 2 for 8 years, i played it just yesterday.I quit Diablo 3 after a week, of playing like a hour a day, i got maybe 3 hours in the first time i played, and it just bored the living bejesus out of me.
Yup.
Funny, I fired up D2 a few weeks back and it was pretty fun fooling around with 3 different warrior builds, a couple Necros and other toons I had on there. And there were no rose colored glasses, that I could find. (Maybe I should look in the RMAH in D3 next time? :P)
A what was the biggest thing that hit me? When I hit a level, I actually had some CHOICES. What a radical concept....
(And of course I did not need to log onto some crappy b.net servers to get hacked, or have the RMAH in my face.)
As to the OP and dev statements, it sounds like a bunch of whiny excuse making to me, about how the next game in the franchise is not as " well received" as the last one.
That is what happens when the revenue model (aka making the game around the need for the RMAH) the center of design priorities, as opposed to gameplay.
That's what happens when a company changes its mantra from "by gamers, for gamers" to "a culture of thrift."
Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.
I didn't read all the replies, but I love that my memories aren't reality when I am still playing the game. Just like people telling me that the things I like from some of the old games are because of rose colored glasses when I am still playing some of those games as well. I wonder what else I remember that isn't real?
I didn't read all the replies, but I love that my memories aren't reality when I am still playing the game. Just like people telling me that the things I like from some of the old games are because of rose colored glasses when I am still playing some of those games as well. I wonder what else I remember that isn't real?
For example, in any thread where people complain about level 50-59 gear dropping in Inferno difficulty, you will find numerous comments from people who genuinely seem to believe that in D2, all loot drops were of a level appropriate to the level of the mob dropping them. When, in fact, D2 actually had a MUCH greater range of low-level drops from high-level mobs - to the extent that Hell Baal could drop the lowest level items in the game.
Or, I've seen threads complaining about the fact that when you die, there is an increasingly long respawn timer, saying that D2 never had any un-fun punishing mechanics like that - completely forgetting the fact that in D2 you lost a bunch of xp for dying! How can you say people remember D2 when they think a 20-30 second respawn timer is more punishing than D2's xp loss?
I remember that D2 had a pathetically small inventory which you had to rearrange yourself in order to fit larger items, dumped you back in town every time you logged back in, had far too many unidentified items, was nerfed to hell and back every time a patch came out, had a really annoying way of persuading you to collect gems which you later found out were largely useless and, in spite of that, was still fun to play.
Think what they're trying to say is that they know D3 isn't a patch on D2 and they'd rather we just forgot how good D2 was.
For example, in any thread where people complain about level 50-59 gear dropping in Inferno difficulty, you will find numerous comments from people who genuinely seem to believe that in D2, all loot drops were of a level appropriate to the level of the mob dropping them. When, in fact, D2 actually had a MUCH greater range of low-level drops from high-level mobs - to the extent that Hell Baal could drop the lowest level items in the game.
Or, I've seen threads complaining about the fact that when you die, there is an increasingly long respawn timer, saying that D2 never had any un-fun punishing mechanics like that - completely forgetting the fact that in D2 you lost a bunch of xp for dying! How can you say people remember D2 when they think a 20-30 second respawn timer is more punishing than D2's xp loss?
In D2 some uniques and set items are actually really good even if they are low or mid level items. You can continue to use some of them at high levels. And if you give them to one of your alts and equip them at level 10 they are very overpowered.
The items was better and more interesting. And things being overpowered or making content trivial was not considered a serious problem. In D3 balance is a priority and they appear to think it is very important. Personally I am very convinced that is because the AH makes the economy very important. But anyway it makes the game less fun for people that just want to play for fun... Players that wants to dominate and kill hundreds of mobs. You know typical hack and slash without any serious game balance .
The punishment you get when you die is repair costs. And for poor players it hurts more than the xp-loss in D2. For other players that are getting rich from buying and selling(playing the economy) its no big deal.
Something is lost when they try to make a ARPG that is a "serious" and balanced game. And anyone can install and play D2 today. And compare the games... There is no reason anyone should have to depend on old memorys.
Play normal or nightmare. Problem solved. Gear repairs are cheaper. Monsters can be killed by the fistfull with no effort and minimal gearing. Gold is rediculously easy to come by. Low level legendaries do drop in Nightmare. The problem is people think they should be able to faceroll the hardest level in the game. I hope they never can.
Play naked if they nerf the game. Problem solved. It goes both ways.
It is not a mmo, and i like mmos, i like the difficulty, grind and the annoying things in them, d3 was not supposed to be like that, its a shame...
Play normal or nightmare. Problem solved. Gear repairs are cheaper. Monsters can be killed by the fistfull with no effort and minimal gearing. Gold is rediculously easy to come by. Low level legendaries do drop in Nightmare. The problem is people think they should be able to faceroll the hardest level in the game. I hope they never can.
Play naked if they nerf the game. Problem solved. It goes both ways.
It is not a mmo, and i like mmos, i like the difficulty, grind and the annoying things in them, d3 was not supposed to be like that, its a shame...
Flame on!
You bought an Action-Rpg and expected no grind at its endgame? You should have read up on the genre before buying D3.
Play normal or nightmare. Problem solved. Gear repairs are cheaper. Monsters can be killed by the fistfull with no effort and minimal gearing. Gold is rediculously easy to come by. Low level legendaries do drop in Nightmare. The problem is people think they should be able to faceroll the hardest level in the game. I hope they never can.
Play naked if they nerf the game. Problem solved. It goes both ways.
It is not a mmo, and i like mmos, i like the difficulty, grind and the annoying things in them, d3 was not supposed to be like that, its a shame...
Flame on!
You bought an Action-Rpg and expected no grind at its endgame? You should have read up on the genre before buying D3.
I bought a diablo game, nothing more, nothing less
Well kind of a funny statement for the guy to make considering his company is banking on people having enough fond memories of D2 to want to purchase and play a sequel to it. As I've stated before, if Blizzard wanted this game to stand on its own merrits, they should not have named it Diablo 3.
Face it Blizz. You aimed the game at the Moba crowd instead of Diablo veterans, and then spent most of the game design process thinking of new ways to pry more money out of the player. It shows.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Play normal or nightmare. Problem solved. Gear repairs are cheaper. Monsters can be killed by the fistfull with no effort and minimal gearing. Gold is rediculously easy to come by. Low level legendaries do drop in Nightmare. The problem is people think they should be able to faceroll the hardest level in the game. I hope they never can.
Play naked if they nerf the game. Problem solved. It goes both ways.
It is not a mmo, and i like mmos, i like the difficulty, grind and the annoying things in them, d3 was not supposed to be like that, its a shame...
Flame on!
You bought an Action-Rpg and expected no grind at its endgame? You should have read up on the genre before buying D3.
I bought a diablo game, nothing more, nothing less
Flame on!
And somehow you expected a Diablo game to be fundamentally different from every other Diablo game? Why?
Not me. I expected it to be the same, which is why it was such a let down.
Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.
Comments
Considering how many never-happened=that-way "memories" of other games we see popping up constantly...
Exaggeration over time is not an unusual internet phenomenon. Just watch how much better SWG's rep/revisionist history is now than it was while the game was actually still struggling for subs. Or hell, EQ or UO or DAoC for that matter; which have clearly all grown in rose-colored "epicness" over time.
He's got a point. Poorly stated one, and lord knows not one that excuses anything...but in terms of how gamers memory works, yes.
How often have you seen a claim that that is clearly mistaken? Not through malice on the author's part or faulty memory, necessarily, but simply being unaware that game Z also had feature Y and had it first?
WoW gets credit (from the WoW generation) for inventing a whole lot of game features that all considerably older than WoW is, for instance. So does Diablo.
Quiz (easy for us old guys, maybe, harder for people who never played another MMO before WoW):
Which MMO first featured instancing?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I was actually talking about diablo2 is LIKE 10 years old but used re1 as an example from my own experience.
That still wasn't what the article said, he just said that many people remember Diablo 2 darker and harder than what it really was. He never said that everyone remember it a ton better than what it was.
If you want to know how good an old game really was, just think how long you played it. If you played D2 a year it was a great game, if you played it for 3 weeks but remember it as amazing you might consider that something smells fishy.
We are discussing the interview with the devs and my opinion was that OP missunderstood the whole thing said in there.
If you mean instancing in the sense of multiple copies or "channels" of the same area(s) to balance out player-load, then Anarchy Online would be my answer. Although I guess you could say their mission areas were also instanced, and randomly generated! I'm not aware of any other MMO that had that before AO. Could well be wrong on that though.
One quick bit about people being mistaken that one game had a feature before another. That's simply a matter of someone having not played or payed much attention to literally every game that's out there, or what its features were, which is not a "sin" in itself. I doubt there's anyone who actually is that knowledgable. But, never say never. The mistake those people make is failing to qualify their statements by saying something like "There's no other game that does "x", instead of saying, "there's no other game I'm aware of that does "x".
It's not the same as someone actually having played a given game and remembering certain experiential things about it. Personally, when I see someone whose description of something seems more "epic" than what I remember it being, I chalk it up to that particular event or aspect simply having that much of an impact on them. There's been plenty of times where I've been blown away by something in a MMO that others weren't nearly as impressed by. Does that mean my memory of that event is faulty? Not at all. It just means my reaction wasn't the same.
Also, I wouldn't put mis-remembering factual information about a game, such as specific details of gameplay mechanics,in the same category as "rose-colored glasses" or "nostalgia goggles". Specific details of things can tend to escape us with time and inattention because such information is "dry". It doesn't necessary leave much of a footprint in our memories. Experiences, memories and events that had a personal impact on someone - for good or bad - tend to stick much better though. For example, I can't remember the specific stats of the Dragoon AF helmet from FFXI, but I can sure tell you how awesome the experience of obtaining it was.
I guess my primary concern when it comes to topics like this is that there's really 2 or 3 different possible things at play in a given situation where someone remembering a game they played years in the past doesn't match with somenoe else's experience or memory of it. Yet, there's a lot of people who will immediately lump all situations into the same category of "oh, you're just remembering that through a nostalgia filter", when that is not necessarily the case.
Oh rly. Well then perhaps my memory of a crappy D3 is not reality either.
Who'da thunk it.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
I played D1 for years.
I played D2 for years.
I played D3 for a hour half.
It's a limp-wristed themepark WoW with some Diablo branding and a isometric camera.
My fond memories of Diablo 2 were killing monsters and finding cool items for my character or friends.
My memories of Diablo 3 are killing monsters for vendor trash, so I can spend more time in the auction screen.
D3 was just pure fail. Jay can say whatever he wants but we all know what the reality is.
Grim Dawn, the next great action rpg!
http://www.grimdawn.com/
It has some truth to it. I went back to play Tomb Raider on my ps and was like, omg this game sucks. Back then I absolutely loved the game lol.
This ^
The fact that he even made that statement makes him look like a complete idiot. Yes, people's memories tend to distort things in one way or another. Yes, this means that their memory of Diablo 2 might be inaccurate.
Why on earth would you use that as basis for a new game? And why on earth was this a lesson for you?!
What people remembered about D2, and whether or not that is accurate, is completely irrelevant. You listen to the features people enjoyed from the game, improve upon them, and expand upon them. Some developers make this process out to be way more complicated than it really is. It does take a lot of work, but it's not all that complicated. No need to get all metaphysical and overthink things.
The game doesn't suck, it's just dated (other games have expanded on it's mechanics to the point where it now feels obscelete).
I also went through a time where I went back through old PS1 games. It because very clear that certain games still held up, while others now felt awful. Even with poor graphics there are certain games I still enjoy from the original PS.
A truly superior product eclipses its predecessors.
You cannot argue that.
After playing Diablo 3 for the passed Month I can't touch Diablo 2.
Sorry but the games combat is terrible, even if I loved the game before D3 is simply a superior game gameplay wise.
Sure there are certain mechanics i wish D3 had but in a game where you are fighting 99% of the time Fluid combat matters and D3 has it in spades.
Playing: Nothing
Looking forward to: Nothing
Yup.
Funny, I fired up D2 a few weeks back and it was pretty fun fooling around with 3 different warrior builds, a couple Necros and other toons I had on there. And there were no rose colored glasses, that I could find. (Maybe I should look in the RMAH in D3 next time? :P)
A what was the biggest thing that hit me? When I hit a level, I actually had some CHOICES. What a radical concept....
(And of course I did not need to log onto some crappy b.net servers to get hacked, or have the RMAH in my face.)
As to the OP and dev statements, it sounds like a bunch of whiny excuse making to me, about how the next game in the franchise is not as " well received" as the last one.
That is what happens when the revenue model (aka making the game around the need for the RMAH) the center of design priorities, as opposed to gameplay.
Yup.
Funny, I fired up D2 a few weeks back and it was pretty fun fooling around with 3 different warrior builds, a couple Necros and other toons I had on there. And there were no rose colored glasses, that I could find. (Maybe I should look in the RMAH in D3 next time? :P)
A what was the biggest thing that hit me? When I hit a level, I actually had some CHOICES. What a radical concept....
(And of course I did not need to log onto some crappy b.net servers to get hacked, or have the RMAH in my face.)
As to the OP and dev statements, it sounds like a bunch of whiny excuse making to me, about how the next game in the franchise is not as " well received" as the last one.
That is what happens when the revenue model (aka making the game around the need for the RMAH) the center of design priorities, as opposed to gameplay.
That's what happens when a company changes its mantra from "by gamers, for gamers" to "a culture of thrift."Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.
I didn't read all the replies, but I love that my memories aren't reality when I am still playing the game. Just like people telling me that the things I like from some of the old games are because of rose colored glasses when I am still playing some of those games as well. I wonder what else I remember that isn't real?
Is this real life?
Or is this just Fanta Sea?
He's got a point, though.
For example, in any thread where people complain about level 50-59 gear dropping in Inferno difficulty, you will find numerous comments from people who genuinely seem to believe that in D2, all loot drops were of a level appropriate to the level of the mob dropping them. When, in fact, D2 actually had a MUCH greater range of low-level drops from high-level mobs - to the extent that Hell Baal could drop the lowest level items in the game.
Or, I've seen threads complaining about the fact that when you die, there is an increasingly long respawn timer, saying that D2 never had any un-fun punishing mechanics like that - completely forgetting the fact that in D2 you lost a bunch of xp for dying! How can you say people remember D2 when they think a 20-30 second respawn timer is more punishing than D2's xp loss?
I remember that D2 had a pathetically small inventory which you had to rearrange yourself in order to fit larger items, dumped you back in town every time you logged back in, had far too many unidentified items, was nerfed to hell and back every time a patch came out, had a really annoying way of persuading you to collect gems which you later found out were largely useless and, in spite of that, was still fun to play.
Think what they're trying to say is that they know D3 isn't a patch on D2 and they'd rather we just forgot how good D2 was.
In D2 some uniques and set items are actually really good even if they are low or mid level items. You can continue to use some of them at high levels. And if you give them to one of your alts and equip them at level 10 they are very overpowered.
The items was better and more interesting. And things being overpowered or making content trivial was not considered a serious problem. In D3 balance is a priority and they appear to think it is very important. Personally I am very convinced that is because the AH makes the economy very important. But anyway it makes the game less fun for people that just want to play for fun... Players that wants to dominate and kill hundreds of mobs. You know typical hack and slash without any serious game balance .
The punishment you get when you die is repair costs. And for poor players it hurts more than the xp-loss in D2. For other players that are getting rich from buying and selling(playing the economy) its no big deal.
Something is lost when they try to make a ARPG that is a "serious" and balanced game. And anyone can install and play D2 today. And compare the games... There is no reason anyone should have to depend on old memorys.
Play naked if they nerf the game. Problem solved. It goes both ways.
It is not a mmo, and i like mmos, i like the difficulty, grind and the annoying things in them, d3 was not supposed to be like that, its a shame...
Flame on!
You bought an Action-Rpg and expected no grind at its endgame? You should have read up on the genre before buying D3.
Playing: Nothing
Looking forward to: Nothing
I bought a diablo game, nothing more, nothing less
Flame on!
Well kind of a funny statement for the guy to make considering his company is banking on people having enough fond memories of D2 to want to purchase and play a sequel to it. As I've stated before, if Blizzard wanted this game to stand on its own merrits, they should not have named it Diablo 3.
Face it Blizz. You aimed the game at the Moba crowd instead of Diablo veterans, and then spent most of the game design process thinking of new ways to pry more money out of the player. It shows.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Not me. I expected it to be the same, which is why it was such a let down.
Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.