I'm still only in the second act. Been playing since release. Just rather casually. So enough content for me!
Also I don't see how a NON-MMO needs "enggame". It's like complaining that the very nice hask&slash "Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance" for the Playstation was shit because it lacked endgame.
Great game, but just like Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 how many times can you beat it over and over? I beat it on Normal, had my fun and moved on until a new expansion.
With so many MMOs out there today, why does one need to have end game in a hack and slash? Most games give you 10 hours of gameplay for $60 I got way more than out of Diablo 3.
Skyrim does not have end-game and yet millions of people playing it for months and over 100 hours. Blizzard making excuse for not having enough content in the first place and they blame it on not having a viable end-game for players to do.
Comparing to Skyrim, D3 content is very tiny and re-playing skyrim from starting were more fun than playing D3 repeating the same tiny content but on different difficulties.
??? What are you doing comparing D3 to Skyrim?!
Compared to D2, the lack of PvP (I know, it's coming soon*tm*), and the lack of the "community layer" (trading, lobbies, scams, other old PC gaming standards) really kills the fun and makes it frankly sterile.
Funny thing is, it has the same 'endgame' that D2 had, but according to the haters it's magically 'not enough anymore'.
I honestly don't think they'll be satisfied until every monster farts out 5 legendaries when it dies, and their characters can run through Inferno only using two abilities, while naked.
diablo 3 is total crap. I played it for about 10 minutes. What a peice of shit game.
Well, at least you gave it a solid try! Way to go champ!!
He did better then me, I haven't even watched somebody play it.
But did you go onto a public forum and proclaim the game was a total crap piece of shit game?
That's where he wins. He spent 10 excruciating minutes playing a game and, after his extensive hand-on research, made up his mind and felt the urge to share his well thought out opinion with the world.
So, unless you are going to proclaim that this game you haven't played, seen or know anything about is a total crap piece of shit game, then he wins. sorry...
Funny thing is, it has the same 'endgame' that D2 had, but according to the haters it's magically 'not enough anymore'.
I honestly don't think they'll be satisfied until every monster farts out 5 legendaries when it dies, and their characters can run through Inferno only using two abilities, while naked.
After which they'll complain there's nothing to do in the game since they already have all the gear. In addition it'll be bashed for being too easy and dumbed down
Diablo 3 is a single player linear traditional hack and slash role playing game the only end game it needs is for you to kill diablo. expecting anything other than that is pure foolishness. despite the need for internet to play it, diablo 3 is NOT a MMO, so it doesnt need end game content like WoW or EQ2 or Rift or SWTOR does.
"Possibly we humans can exist without actually having to fight. But many of us have chosen to fight. For what reason? To protect something? Protect what? Ourselves? The future? If we kill people to protect ourselves and this future, then what sort of future is it, and what will we have become? There is no future for those who have died. And what of those who did the killing? Is happiness to be found in a future that is grasped with blood stained hands? Is that the truth?"
Well, the buisness suits who run blizzard have come out with what a lot of us know...D3 has no endgame and should only be played through once or twice at most, and here is their offical txt on the matter:
"We recognize that the item hunt is just not enough for a long-term sustainable end-game. ... but eventually they're going to run out of stuff to do (if they haven't already). Killing enemies and finding items is a lot of fun... But honestly Diablo III is not World of Warcraft. We aren't going to be able to pump out tons of new systems and content every couple months. There needs to be something else that keeps people engaged, and we know it's not there right now.
We're working toward 1.0.4, which we're really trying to pack with as many fixes and changes we can to help you guys out ... and we're of course working on 1.1 with PvP arenas. I think both those patches will do a lot to give people things to do, and get them excited about playing, but they're not going to be a real end-game solution, at least not what we would expect out of a proper end-game. We have some ideas for progression systems..."
It's no WoW folks...we all need to move on from it acording to Blizzard.
Does that mean D3 is a fail... feel free to discuss folks
Your conclusions are so fail I dont know how to respond...
There is absolutely nothing in the blue text to support anything I marked red. In fact, more is mentioned to counter your statement than confirm it.
I feel his statements are valid, or at least hold some truth. There are statements in the blue text that supports his claims. The clearly state there is no endgame and that people are "going to run out of stuff to do (if they haven't already)". Them saying that Diablo 3 is not WoW just further drives the nail into the coffin. They're basically saying if you're expecting to get the endgame/progression you see in WoW then you're expecting way too much. By the OP's last statement I'm sure he was only talking about those that were expecting that. I for one didn't purchase the game for that reason... My time is much better spent elsewhere.
I would like to know what you think in the blue text counter's the OP's statements.
EDIT: One last thing I'd like to touch on is that for a game that had been in development for what seemed like forever, it sure lacked A LOT of stuff... I'm sure this is one of the big reasons why most people are disappointed.
I don't understand...was diablo 2 a game that had never ending...endgame?
I don't recall it being so.
Was diablo 3 suppose to be a game with constantly updated stuff? Because if im not mistaken, i don't pay a sub fee for it, and i don't have to play with other people to progress.
diablo 3 is total crap. I played it for about 10 minutes. What a peice of shit game.
Well, at least you gave it a solid try! Way to go champ!!
He did better then me, I haven't even watched somebody play it.
But did you go onto a public forum and proclaim the game was a total crap piece of shit game?
That's where he wins. He spent 10 excruciating minutes playing a game and, after his extensive hand-on research, made up his mind and felt the urge to share his well thought out opinion with the world.
So, unless you are going to proclaim that this game you haven't played, seen or know anything about is a total crap piece of shit game, then he wins. sorry...
does that make Diablo III P2W?
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
Funny thing is, it has the same 'endgame' that D2 had, but according to the haters it's magically 'not enough anymore'.
I honestly don't think they'll be satisfied until every monster farts out 5 legendaries when it dies, and their characters can run through Inferno only using two abilities, while naked.
Diablo 2 had alot more to do. A larger world to explore and more bosses to kill that actualy drop loot unlike D3 for some reason doesen't allow cause it can be used as "farming!? wtf", no dumb lvl 60 restriction, character customization/tinkering and items that actualy have stats that are good unlike d3 where I can get a barbarian only item with intelligens and wizard skills on it. And lets not forget that it had 8 players and a real lobby for trading unlike the shitty console like lobby it has now.
[mod edit]
You know what's REALLY funny? (to me at least)
Is watching people complain that Diablo 3 is not the same as Diablo 2. It's like, they don't even realize they are two different games. Diablo 2 did it one way, Diabo 3 did it different. Some people like Diablo 2's way, some prefer Diablo 3's way of doing things. But they aren't the same...so...OMG...don't freak out but...change happens!!
Is there some unwritten RULE that a sequel has to be EXACTLY like it's predesessor? I don't think there is.
Funny thing is, it has the same 'endgame' that D2 had, but according to the haters it's magically 'not enough anymore'.
I honestly don't think they'll be satisfied until every monster farts out 5 legendaries when it dies, and their characters can run through Inferno only using two abilities, while naked.
Diablo 2 had alot more to do. A larger world to explore and more bosses to kill that actualy drop loot unlike D3 for some reason that doesen't allow it because it can be used as "farming!? wtf". No dumb lvl 60 restriction either and character customization/tinkering. Items actualy had good stats unlike D3 where you find barbarian only items with wizard stats on it.... Then lets not mention 8 players and a real lobby for trading unlike that console port like style they are going with.
[mod edit]
Diablo 2 had almost nothing to do. People would teleport to the last dungeon and skip everything just to farm the same boss over and over. In Diablo 3 you actually venture out into the world, which is a vast improvement. It was also much harder to find gear with good stats in Diablo 2.
Compared to D2, the lack of PvP (I know, it's coming soon*tm*), and the lack of the "community layer" (trading, lobbies, scams, other old PC gaming standards) really kills the fun and makes it frankly sterile.
It's pretty laughable to imply D3 failed because it lacked D2's gear-determined, shallow PVP. Progression-based games have the worst PVP, and D2 was a low-quality PVP game even as progression games go!
I barely touched the shallow PVP and almost entirely avoided the weak "community", yet I enjoyed D2 a lot. It had its problems (no reason to level past ~35, and crappy early game challenge) but it managed to feel worth playing a very long time due to alts. I don't fault D3 for removing alts (I actually love the skill system) only for repeating the crappy early game challenge problem and for failing to create the same sort of progressive item farm they accomplished in WOW (which they didn't accomplish in D3, since the optimal loot rate seems to always occur in Act 1 inferno.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Compared to D2, the lack of PvP (I know, it's coming soon*tm*), and the lack of the "community layer" (trading, lobbies, scams, other old PC gaming standards) really kills the fun and makes it frankly sterile.
It's pretty laughable to imply D3 failed because it lacked D2's gear-determined, shallow PVP. Progression-based games have the worst PVP, and D2 was a low-quality PVP game even as progression games go!
I barely touched the shallow PVP and almost entirely avoided the weak "community", yet I enjoyed D2 a lot. It had its problems (no reason to level past ~35, and crappy early game challenge) but it managed to feel worth playing a very long time due to alts. I don't fault D3 for removing alts (I actually love the skill system) only for repeating the crappy early game challenge problem and for failing to create the same sort of progressive item farm they accomplished in WOW (which they didn't accomplish in D3, since the optimal loot rate seems to always occur in Act 1 inferno.)
For once i agree, d3 has conceptual problems that would not go away even if there was pvp or a proper community, like in the old days.
However, "shallow pvp" , yes, that was exactly what people liked, even the silly stuff like leap attack killing you anywhere.
And the whole talk about level 35 and no reason to level and so on, well, atleast you seem have something in common with wow err.. d3 devs, no idea (or, in your case a vague one) why d2 worked and thinking about the whole issue in mmo and wow terms, progression, challenge, endgame, "lets throw some cooldowns and enrage timers onto it, well see how it turns out"
For example, even in wow, the progressive item farm, whatever that may be, has been reduced to the number hunt, dps numbers, gearscore numbers, in a mmo it does not seem to be a huge issue (even if i would disagree), focus being "group events" raids and stuff, but in an action rpg? Singleplayer?
replayability is nice.. not all games have that. . . end game? I think people who called it an MMO would think it should have that. . this is why the rest of us said it was not an MMO. . co-op, multiplayer etc. There were a lot of games like that that when you finished the credits roll. Why would Diablo 3 be different?
What would you want to see for "end game"? Raiding? The game already has different difficulty levels and classes to play. I just don't know what it would look like. I am not trying to say it is wrong to want it. . but what would you expect it to look like?
"Diablo III is not World of Warcraft. We aren't going to be able to pump out tons of new systems and content every couple months"
hah hah hah
Ask the people running LFR DS for six months straight if they're happy with WOW's blazing fast development cycle and content updates! They can't update their main cash cow at a reasonable pace - there's certainly no, and I mean NO hope for D3's sorry ass.
If they'd not limited basically everything that made Diablo, DIablo in such a fashion as to attempt a forced RMAH - there would be plenty of people happy to farm items and experiement with ridiculous gearsets and talent builds. I seem to remember most of the people who played D1 and D2 played for years, more than most have WOW.
I seem to remember most of the people who played D1 and D2 played for years, more than most have WOW.
You memory is incorrect. Most people played D1 and D2 through once then never played it again. Most of them never even tried hardcore or hell difficulties. Comparatively few people played it long term.
Debatable, we have no data indicating this or the opposite, outside the usual casual majority which in EVERY game stops half trough or at the start (from a gamer perspective), wows "level 15" argument being sufficiently known.
Even so you still cannot account for people "playing trough normal" and then selecting another class and build, playing at home, singleplayer or with relatives, as i get older i encounter more and more of those once enthusiasts, now with spouses, and older ones with kids playing civilisation, red alert 1, lineage 2, diablo, diablo 2, wow casually levelling to maxlevel, then restarting another class or quitting.
While i would be far from saying that the game is not enjoyable to customers like that (some days i have the lingering feeling that it is on purpose, make the first week or two fun so that casual customers and reviewers are satisfied, screw everyone else), it is still a difference from d2, you can encounter annoyances as soon as nigtmare (fast knockback on leapers for example, they basically "stunlock" you) and the item blandness does not help either, no more lv6 set item for you...
If only this game had 2 previous installments to learn from. What exactly kept people playing D2 for so bloody long.
As far as i'm concerned the current diablo developement team doesn't have a freakin clue what drives an ARPG and especially not a Diablo ARPG.
Based on the previous 2 installments of Diablo, i was expecting what we have currently story wise (compare playtime of D2 and D2 and they aren't all that far off. I remember act 4 in D2 being hella short also comparitively (*sp). Of course leaving room for an expansion (possibly 2 for d3) to add more content (no mount areat type event in d3 though :P).
-as far as the gameplay is concerned i'm content.
Where it fails miserably in my eyes is the lack of l00t. This is the whole reason i ever played diablo or jonesed for an ARPG. The item hunt. Releasing D3 in it's current state where blues and yellows were the end all be all of gear is inexcusable. There were tons of greens, golds, jewels, gems, runes etc etc to find it was awesome (post LoD of course). Now many people argue that the game has just been released and D2 never had that stuff at release. This is by far the dumbest arguement evar! Why on earth would a developement company ignore the years of feedback and improvements of it's predecessor and start from scratch. Stupid, just plain stupid.
And of course there's pvp... oh wait nvm there isn't.
Got a 100 or so hours out of it in HC and still enjoying myself. For me personally thats bang for the buck. Too many games for the same price which are way fewer hours in playtime/enjoyability.
Comments
I'm still only in the second act. Been playing since release. Just rather casually. So enough content for me!
Also I don't see how a NON-MMO needs "enggame". It's like complaining that the very nice hask&slash "Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance" for the Playstation was shit because it lacked endgame.
Great game, but just like Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 how many times can you beat it over and over? I beat it on Normal, had my fun and moved on until a new expansion.
With so many MMOs out there today, why does one need to have end game in a hack and slash? Most games give you 10 hours of gameplay for $60 I got way more than out of Diablo 3.
??? What are you doing comparing D3 to Skyrim?!
Compared to D2, the lack of PvP (I know, it's coming soon*tm*), and the lack of the "community layer" (trading, lobbies, scams, other old PC gaming standards) really kills the fun and makes it frankly sterile.
He did better then me, I haven't even watched somebody play it.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
Funny thing is, it has the same 'endgame' that D2 had, but according to the haters it's magically 'not enough anymore'.
I honestly don't think they'll be satisfied until every monster farts out 5 legendaries when it dies, and their characters can run through Inferno only using two abilities, while naked.
But did you go onto a public forum and proclaim the game was a total crap piece of shit game?
That's where he wins. He spent 10 excruciating minutes playing a game and, after his extensive hand-on research, made up his mind and felt the urge to share his well thought out opinion with the world.
So, unless you are going to proclaim that this game you haven't played, seen or know anything about is a total crap piece of shit game, then he wins. sorry...
As long as it's better than Diablo 2's "end game" I'm happy. And it certainly is
After which they'll complain there's nothing to do in the game since they already have all the gear. In addition it'll be bashed for being too easy and dumbed down
Diablo 3 is a single player linear traditional hack and slash role playing game the only end game it needs is for you to kill diablo. expecting anything other than that is pure foolishness. despite the need for internet to play it, diablo 3 is NOT a MMO, so it doesnt need end game content like WoW or EQ2 or Rift or SWTOR does.
"Possibly we humans can exist without actually having to fight. But many of us have chosen to fight. For what reason? To protect something? Protect what? Ourselves? The future? If we kill people to protect ourselves and this future, then what sort of future is it, and what will we have become? There is no future for those who have died. And what of those who did the killing? Is happiness to be found in a future that is grasped with blood stained hands? Is that the truth?"
I feel his statements are valid, or at least hold some truth. There are statements in the blue text that supports his claims. The clearly state there is no endgame and that people are "going to run out of stuff to do (if they haven't already)". Them saying that Diablo 3 is not WoW just further drives the nail into the coffin. They're basically saying if you're expecting to get the endgame/progression you see in WoW then you're expecting way too much. By the OP's last statement I'm sure he was only talking about those that were expecting that. I for one didn't purchase the game for that reason... My time is much better spent elsewhere.
I would like to know what you think in the blue text counter's the OP's statements.
EDIT: One last thing I'd like to touch on is that for a game that had been in development for what seemed like forever, it sure lacked A LOT of stuff... I'm sure this is one of the big reasons why most people are disappointed.
I don't understand...was diablo 2 a game that had never ending...endgame?
I don't recall it being so.
Was diablo 3 suppose to be a game with constantly updated stuff? Because if im not mistaken, i don't pay a sub fee for it, and i don't have to play with other people to progress.
does that make Diablo III P2W?
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
You know what's REALLY funny? (to me at least)
Is watching people complain that Diablo 3 is not the same as Diablo 2. It's like, they don't even realize they are two different games. Diablo 2 did it one way, Diabo 3 did it different. Some people like Diablo 2's way, some prefer Diablo 3's way of doing things. But they aren't the same...so...OMG...don't freak out but...change happens!!
Is there some unwritten RULE that a sequel has to be EXACTLY like it's predesessor? I don't think there is.
Diablo 2 had almost nothing to do. People would teleport to the last dungeon and skip everything just to farm the same boss over and over. In Diablo 3 you actually venture out into the world, which is a vast improvement. It was also much harder to find gear with good stats in Diablo 2.
It's pretty laughable to imply D3 failed because it lacked D2's gear-determined, shallow PVP. Progression-based games have the worst PVP, and D2 was a low-quality PVP game even as progression games go!
I barely touched the shallow PVP and almost entirely avoided the weak "community", yet I enjoyed D2 a lot. It had its problems (no reason to level past ~35, and crappy early game challenge) but it managed to feel worth playing a very long time due to alts. I don't fault D3 for removing alts (I actually love the skill system) only for repeating the crappy early game challenge problem and for failing to create the same sort of progressive item farm they accomplished in WOW (which they didn't accomplish in D3, since the optimal loot rate seems to always occur in Act 1 inferno.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
For once i agree, d3 has conceptual problems that would not go away even if there was pvp or a proper community, like in the old days.
However, "shallow pvp" , yes, that was exactly what people liked, even the silly stuff like leap attack killing you anywhere.
And the whole talk about level 35 and no reason to level and so on, well, atleast you seem have something in common with wow err.. d3 devs, no idea (or, in your case a vague one) why d2 worked and thinking about the whole issue in mmo and wow terms, progression, challenge, endgame, "lets throw some cooldowns and enrage timers onto it, well see how it turns out"
For example, even in wow, the progressive item farm, whatever that may be, has been reduced to the number hunt, dps numbers, gearscore numbers, in a mmo it does not seem to be a huge issue (even if i would disagree), focus being "group events" raids and stuff, but in an action rpg? Singleplayer?
Flame on!
replayability is nice.. not all games have that. . . end game? I think people who called it an MMO would think it should have that. . this is why the rest of us said it was not an MMO. . co-op, multiplayer etc. There were a lot of games like that that when you finished the credits roll. Why would Diablo 3 be different?
What would you want to see for "end game"? Raiding? The game already has different difficulty levels and classes to play. I just don't know what it would look like. I am not trying to say it is wrong to want it. . but what would you expect it to look like?
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
Many games have endgame that is not raiding. A cool idea would be a survival mode or somthing similair.
"Diablo III is not World of Warcraft. We aren't going to be able to pump out tons of new systems and content every couple months"
hah hah hah
Ask the people running LFR DS for six months straight if they're happy with WOW's blazing fast development cycle and content updates! They can't update their main cash cow at a reasonable pace - there's certainly no, and I mean NO hope for D3's sorry ass.
If they'd not limited basically everything that made Diablo, DIablo in such a fashion as to attempt a forced RMAH - there would be plenty of people happy to farm items and experiement with ridiculous gearsets and talent builds. I seem to remember most of the people who played D1 and D2 played for years, more than most have WOW.
Debatable, we have no data indicating this or the opposite, outside the usual casual majority which in EVERY game stops half trough or at the start (from a gamer perspective), wows "level 15" argument being sufficiently known.
Even so you still cannot account for people "playing trough normal" and then selecting another class and build, playing at home, singleplayer or with relatives, as i get older i encounter more and more of those once enthusiasts, now with spouses, and older ones with kids playing civilisation, red alert 1, lineage 2, diablo, diablo 2, wow casually levelling to maxlevel, then restarting another class or quitting.
While i would be far from saying that the game is not enjoyable to customers like that (some days i have the lingering feeling that it is on purpose, make the first week or two fun so that casual customers and reviewers are satisfied, screw everyone else), it is still a difference from d2, you can encounter annoyances as soon as nigtmare (fast knockback on leapers for example, they basically "stunlock" you) and the item blandness does not help either, no more lv6 set item for you...
Flame on!
If only this game had 2 previous installments to learn from. What exactly kept people playing D2 for so bloody long.
As far as i'm concerned the current diablo developement team doesn't have a freakin clue what drives an ARPG and especially not a Diablo ARPG.
Based on the previous 2 installments of Diablo, i was expecting what we have currently story wise (compare playtime of D2 and D2 and they aren't all that far off. I remember act 4 in D2 being hella short also comparitively (*sp). Of course leaving room for an expansion (possibly 2 for d3) to add more content (no mount areat type event in d3 though :P).
-as far as the gameplay is concerned i'm content.
Where it fails miserably in my eyes is the lack of l00t. This is the whole reason i ever played diablo or jonesed for an ARPG. The item hunt. Releasing D3 in it's current state where blues and yellows were the end all be all of gear is inexcusable. There were tons of greens, golds, jewels, gems, runes etc etc to find it was awesome (post LoD of course). Now many people argue that the game has just been released and D2 never had that stuff at release. This is by far the dumbest arguement evar! Why on earth would a developement company ignore the years of feedback and improvements of it's predecessor and start from scratch. Stupid, just plain stupid.
And of course there's pvp... oh wait nvm there isn't.
Got a 100 or so hours out of it in HC and still enjoying myself. For me personally thats bang for the buck. Too many games for the same price which are way fewer hours in playtime/enjoyability.