Diablo III fails horribly as a predecessor to Diablo II.
People said the same about D2 when it was released for many of the same reasons. Different stat system, differnet skill system, different mechcanics in general and even the difference in graphics. D2 didn't start out as the awesome classic it became, it took some patches and an expansion pack. Even D1 took a few tweaks after it release.
Honestly to try and act like D1 and 2 are cut from the same mold makes me question if you really have any idea what your talking about. All three games are pretty different in their own ways.
And that highlights the problem with moden gaming. Companies need to realise that modern gamers won't wiat around for an expansion or two to make the game great, it needs to be on release or they'll walk away screaming FAIL at the top of their lungs.
Even if you think 'who cares what they think anyway, they're probably a minority', you need to remember that gamers are probably the most bitter community out there. We don't seem to have the capacity for just letting things go and carrying on. As someone still playing Allods Online I see this every day with that game. Someone on a forum dares to mention they are enjoying it and are immediately told how crap the game is by people who haven't gone near it in two years and called either an idiot or someone working for Allods marketing.
SWTOR will have a hard time turning public opnion around because the people who now hate that game will run in down at every chance they get until the game is dead, even for a while after and even Bioware fix all the things they currently hate about it
What are you talking about? They owned the IP and managed the devlopment process 100% of the way through. They never even hinted otherwise. Now, you're contradicting everything about that, and with no evidence? Yeah, no.
English. Learn it. No contradiction. Outside the team does not mean outside the company.
As for drach that internal testing on diablo 3 is in reference to their own team, not the rest of the company. Not to mention I also noted that I was talking about the release version, not one of the three previous versions that team went through. So actually in retrospect that could be talking about the third version?
With Bioware that comment came out a while ago and the original commentary on it has since been pulled by an angry Bioware. You can still find info on it floating about if you look for commentary on Mass Effect's writing team.
And finally in quick regard to the other old titles, I do not know much about id or anyone that made Quake or Doom. I already mentioned Diablo and Diablo 2 managed to spend most it's lifecycle internally being played. And Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest I don't know well because I have never talked to, seen, or read/listened to commentary from anyone at Enix, Square Soft, or Square Enix.
Though it's fair to assume the lack of deep story on the id titles means they really didn't need much review.
You can take what I say any way you want. If it doesn't fit in with your idea of how the world works then feel free to ignore it.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Keep patching until the point of saturation and then everyone has a legendary?
Are we playing the same game? The game is DIABLO 3. I wanted to love it.
But I cant.
The game is horrible, its a mess. Its based around a real money AH. At inferno difficulty things become nearly impossible without top of the line gear that you have to pay money for. Plus:
+ No more stat allocation
+ No more In depth skill trees
+ Cartoonish graphics
+ Bland story
Diablo 3 is a disaster. Sorry, you're in the minority if you believe D3 is anything worthy of the Diablo name. The 3.5 D3 has on Metacritic is not a mistake neither is the 1 star it has on Amazon.
It's the best ARPG since D2, most diverse classes, most responsive combat and satisfying effects of the same combat.
You don't have to buy anything, why you let yourself get confused by the AH and stress about it is your problem, but like I said, Blizzard will patch it to the point when you won't feel that way. It started already, one of the first coments on another forum to this new patch is that Inferno is now facerollable, so I guess you're just not hardcore enough to be able to do it.
I'm responding to your comments, not Metacritic, or Amazon, but what ever your reasoning, you can't justify 3.5 or 1 for a game of this quality.
Originally posted by Ariannae
Now here's my question. And this can even be applied to the fans of The Elder Scrolls Online that have never laid finger on an ES game outside of Skyrim; Who the fuck do you think you are to come parading in here as a complete newbie to the Diablo universe, stating that we had our expectations too high as Diablo veterans, knowing exactly what we were getting into, and that it actually is a worthy successor and a good game in light of the other Diablo games, and that the majority of our opinions are wrong, when you haven't even played them?
And this goes to every single player claiming Diablo III is still in the Diablo spirit.
I'm some one who enjoys games ranging from Gran Turismo, Uncharted, The Witcher, Magicka, Flower, God of War, World of Warcraft and still thinks Grim Fandango and Carmaggedon 1 are two best games I ever played.
I'm no expert in Diablo, I only have 200 hours of playtime in D3 and 20ish hours in Titan Quest, but I believe my opinions are far more important than someones who was in advance looking for something that he wasn't gonna get.
So who are you then, dismissing my opinions as inconsequential only on the merrits of my lack of experience with a game over 10 years old? I like good games and I enjoy finding what's fun in them more than I do finding flaws. I can't say how worthy of a successor to Diablo legacy Diablo 3 was (in your mind), but I don't even care about that kind of thinking. For the money spent and the amount of fun I got out of it, it's right up there with other Blizzard games, and all the other great games I played. Not to mention all of the things that will change or be updated in the games lifespan (not that it's any kind of redeeming factor to you), but I'll come back for every major patch and I'll probably stay for a while longer when PVP comes. It's the same story with every Blizzard game and your kind of reasoning will grow less and less relevant as the game gets older.
All I see here is what I see in other popular games threads, bunch of people getting on a soapbox and presenting THEIR reason as the supreme proof of D3s failings. You use words like "spirit" or "successor", that shows me only one thing, you didn't get exactly what you wanted and now that's some kind of proof. Give me a break and get in line.
People like you have their uses too I guess, if you weren't so vocal about your opinions, we wouldn't get this huge update so soon with new systems added and old stuff tweaked to an impressive level, just for a patch.
Diablo III fails horribly as a predecessor to Diablo II.
People said the same about D2 when it was released for many of the same reasons. Different stat system, differnet skill system, different mechcanics in general and even the difference in graphics. D2 didn't start out as the awesome classic it became, it took some patches and an expansion pack. Even D1 took a few tweaks after it release.
Honestly to try and act like D1 and 2 are cut from the same mold makes me question if you really have any idea what your talking about. All three games are pretty different in their own ways.
D1 and D2 are both good games. Yes, they are different. But that is OK. D3 is not a good game... That is the significant difference. D1 and D2 are both based on the same general philosofi. -Make fun games for gamers. D3:s exists for profit only. The philosofi is -profit first... Thats why there is a P2W RMAH. Its designed for profit not for fun...
Its true that some D1 fans complained about D2 at first(I was one of them). But it was certainly not for the same reasons.
Keep patching until the point of saturation and then everyone has a legendary?
Are we playing the same game? The game is DIABLO 3. I wanted to love it.
But I cant.
The game is horrible, its a mess. Its based around a real money AH. At inferno difficulty things become nearly impossible without top of the line gear that you have to pay money for. Plus:
+ No more stat allocation
+ No more In depth skill trees
+ Cartoonish graphics
+ Bland story
Diablo 3 is a disaster. Sorry, you're in the minority if you believe D3 is anything worthy of the Diablo name. The 3.5 D3 has on Metacritic is not a mistake neither is the 1 star it has on Amazon.
It's the best ARPG since D2, most diverse classes, most responsive combat and satisfying effects of the same combat.
You don't have to buy anything, why you let yourself get confused by the AH and stress about it is your problem, but like I said, Blizzard will patch it to the point when you won't feel that way. It started already, one of the first coments on another forum to this new patch is that Inferno is now facerollable, so I guess you're just not hardcore enough to be able to do it.
I'm responding to your comments, not Metacritic, or Amazon, but what ever your reasoning, you can't justify 3.5 or 1 for a game of this quality.
Originally posted by Ariannae
Now here's my question. And this can even be applied to the fans of The Elder Scrolls Online that have never laid finger on an ES game outside of Skyrim; Who the fuck do you think you are to come parading in here as a complete newbie to the Diablo universe, stating that we had our expectations too high as Diablo veterans, knowing exactly what we were getting into, and that it actually is a worthy successor and a good game in light of the other Diablo games, and that the majority of our opinions are wrong, when you haven't even played them?
And this goes to every single player claiming Diablo III is still in the Diablo spirit.
I'm some one who enjoys games ranging from Gran Turismo, Uncharted, The Witcher, Magicka, Flower, God of War, World of Warcraft and still thinks Grim Fandango and Carmaggedon 1 are two best games I ever played.
I'm no expert in Diablo, I only have 200 hours of playtime in D3 and 20ish hours in Titan Quest, but I believe my opinions are far more important than someones who was in advance looking for something that he wasn't gonna get.
So who are you then, dismissing my opinions as inconsequential only on the merrits of my lack of experience with a game over 10 years old? I like good games and I enjoy finding what's fun in them more than I do finding flaws. I can't say how worthy of a successor to Diablo legacy Diablo 3 was (in your mind), but I don't even care about that kind of thinking. For the money spent and the amount of fun I got out of it, it's right up there with other Blizzard games, and all the other great games I played. Not to mention all of the things that will change or be updated in the games lifespan (not that it's any kind of redeeming factor to you), but I'll come back for every major patch and I'll probably stay for a while longer when PVP comes. It's the same story with every Blizzard game and your kind of reasoning will grow less and less relevant as the game gets older.
All I see here is what I see in other popular games threads, bunch of people getting on a soapbox and presenting THEIR reason as the supreme proof of D3s failings. You use words like "spirit" or "successor", that shows me only one thing, you didn't get exactly what you wanted and now that's some kind of proof. Give me a break and get in line.
People like you have their uses too I guess, if you weren't so vocal about your opinions, we wouldn't get this huge update so soon with new systems added and old stuff tweaked to an impressive level, just for a patch.
I beg to differ on the 'most diverse classes' part. Playing cookie cutter builds/classes in a genre that , to me, was all about building a character killed D3 for me.
Not that I have a problem with other people playing it; I just don't enjoy it.
Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.
Diablo III fails horribly as a predecessor to Diablo II.
People said the same about D2 when it was released for many of the same reasons. Different stat system, differnet skill system, different mechcanics in general and even the difference in graphics. D2 didn't start out as the awesome classic it became, it took some patches and an expansion pack. Even D1 took a few tweaks after it release.
Honestly to try and act like D1 and 2 are cut from the same mold makes me question if you really have any idea what your talking about. All three games are pretty different in their own ways.
And that highlights the problem with moden gaming. Companies need to realise that modern gamers won't wiat around for an expansion or two to make the game great, it needs to be on release or they'll walk away screaming FAIL at the top of their lungs.
Even if you think 'who cares what they think anyway, they're probably a minority', you need to remember that gamers are probably the most bitter community out there. We don't seem to have the capacity for just letting things go and carrying on. As someone still playing Allods Online I see this every day with that game. Someone on a forum dares to mention they are enjoying it and are immediately told how crap the game is by people who haven't gone near it in two years and called either an idiot or someone working for Allods marketing.
SWTOR will have a hard time turning public opnion around because the people who now hate that game will run in down at every chance they get until the game is dead, even for a while after and even Bioware fix all the things they currently hate about it
Interesting that you bring up Allods. I really liked the look of the game, and it looked like fun as well. What totally turned me off was the lack of PvE servers and their antics with the cash shop. I normally have no problem with cash shops (the Dev's deserve to benefit from their hard work), but that was over the line, even for me. I take it they still have no PvE servers?
As for SWTOR, thats one of the very few MMO's that I've ever ended my sub in the second month (and thats only because they had already billed me for the second month, by the time I'd decided to leave.). I took a trooper to level 50 (cap) and I have no intention of ever going back. Its a fun game up into the upper 20's or so (and the voice acting really adds to the story), but after that, the rough edges start piling up, and by the end cap, its just not worth it any more (at least to me).
Too many design mistakes, and pressure to release it too soon added up. Its too bad, as it could have been a much better game.
This could have been easily avoided if they didn't mistyped the game name... it should have been named Real Money Auction House 1 instead of Diablo 3. They will learn from this, and then Titan will be renamed to RMAH 2 when it comes out.
The sad thing here is that I was idiot enough to buy this "game", and I can't get my money back now
This could have been easily avoided if they didn't mistyped the game name... it should have been named Real Money Auction House 1 instead of Diablo 3. They will learn from this, and then Titan will be renamed to RMAH 2 when it comes out.
The sad thing here is that I was idiot enough to buy this "game", and I can't get my money back now
Of course you can. I make way more than $60 on the RMAH.
This could have been easily avoided if they didn't mistyped the game name... it should have been named Real Money Auction House 1 instead of Diablo 3. They will learn from this, and then Titan will be renamed to RMAH 2 when it comes out.
The sad thing here is that I was idiot enough to buy this "game", and I can't get my money back now
Of course you can. I make way more than $60 on the RMAH.
He probably has some ethics and a concience.
Something Blizzard lost after the success of WoW. You should use some of those great RMAH earnings to buy a $40.00 ticket so you can watch Blizzcon on your PC.
forget about gold farmer's, we got Blizz farmer's now.
Keep patching until the point of saturation and then everyone has a legendary?
Are we playing the same game? The game is DIABLO 3. I wanted to love it.
But I cant.
The game is horrible, its a mess. Its based around a real money AH. At inferno difficulty things become nearly impossible without top of the line gear that you have to pay money for. Plus:
+ No more stat allocation
+ No more In depth skill trees
+ Cartoonish graphics
+ Bland story
Diablo 3 is a disaster. Sorry, you're in the minority if you believe D3 is anything worthy of the Diablo name. The 3.5 D3 has on Metacritic is not a mistake neither is the 1 star it has on Amazon.
It's the best ARPG since D2, most diverse classes, most responsive combat and satisfying effects of the same combat.
You don't have to buy anything, why you let yourself get confused by the AH and stress about it is your problem, but like I said, Blizzard will patch it to the point when you won't feel that way. It started already, one of the first coments on another forum to this new patch is that Inferno is now facerollable, so I guess you're just not hardcore enough to be able to do it.
I'm responding to your comments, not Metacritic, or Amazon, but what ever your reasoning, you can't justify 3.5 or 1 for a game of this quality.
Diverse classes? Satisfying effects?
Stress about the AH?
You are in your own world. I am getting flashbacks to when I discussed SWTOR with Bioware fanatics and I got the same response.
"You dont have to worry, the hole is a feature! Stop stressing over it"
"Bioware will patch up the game in no time and then we'll see a huge increase in subscribers"
"If you dont like the game, go back to WoW - its too hardcore for you"
"Stop complaining - do you know how much time and effort went into this game? Years! The Bioware devs deserve a break"
etc...etc...etc...
I've stopped playing the game a month ago. A very easy inferno doesnt fix a thing. The game has fundamental design problems that no superficial patch will ever fix. They will never fix the game - it will still be a boring, shallow and dissapointing abomination of a game that only sold so much because it rode on the reputation of its predecessors.
You are not responding to my comments. All you are doing are justifying a broken and dead game.
Just like the Bioware people when SWTOR was sinking and they didnt want to acknowledge it.
Listen: If you like Diablo 3, then good for you.
But many gamers dont, and for good reason. Blizzard sullied themselves all over this game. The original people that worked on D2 are far gone and it shows in the game. Blizzard is more and more looking like EA and is only a shadow of its former self.
I beg to differ on the 'most diverse classes' part. Playing cookie cutter builds/classes in a genre that , to me, was all about building a character killed D3 for me.
Not that I have a problem with other people playing it; I just don't enjoy it.
D3 has the most character builds. After 1.04, just for Wiz ... viable builds include (you can easily get this info reading any D3 forums that discusses classes).
- Archon build if you have high DPS .. or if you farm easier Act (i use it on Act 1).
- AO kiting build (i use a variant of this in Act 2/3)
- blizz/hydra kiting build
- WW CM build (still viable if you have the gear)
- A *new* Meteor CM build
I am also exploring if Arcane Torrent can replace arcane orb .. since its damage was buffed to a huge degree.
And each build has different play style, and many variations. I consider D3 much more diverse, in terms of char build, than WOW, and most MMOs.
What are you talking about? They owned the IP and managed the devlopment process 100% of the way through. They never even hinted otherwise. Now, you're contradicting everything about that, and with no evidence? Yeah, no.
English. Learn it. No contradiction. Outside the team does not mean outside the company.
As for drach that internal testing on diablo 3 is in reference to their own team, not the rest of the company. Not to mention I also noted that I was talking about the release version, not one of the three previous versions that team went through. So actually in retrospect that could be talking about the third version?
With Bioware that comment came out a while ago and the original commentary on it has since been pulled by an angry Bioware. You can still find info on it floating about if you look for commentary on Mass Effect's writing team.
And finally in quick regard to the other old titles, I do not know much about id or anyone that made Quake or Doom. I already mentioned Diablo and Diablo 2 managed to spend most it's lifecycle internally being played. And Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest I don't know well because I have never talked to, seen, or read/listened to commentary from anyone at Enix, Square Soft, or Square Enix.
Though it's fair to assume the lack of deep story on the id titles means they really didn't need much review.
You can take what I say any way you want. If it doesn't fit in with your idea of how the world works then feel free to ignore it.
I'm going to want to see some evidence that things were quite different in this regard rather than just your say-so.
The hell kinda evidence you expect me to give? I already mentioned what's up with the bioware stuff, if your browser can't google then I doubt it can use a link either so I can't help you there.
As for Diablo/Blizzard what do you want? A list of names for the people I talk to? Would you take credibility any differently if I admitted I am friends with people working on Titan?
What's that? No? So you're asking for evidence you won't accept as evidence in the first place? So you mean to tell me you should have just taken my previous comment and been done with it whether you believe me or not?
Oh my. Why didn't you say so!
Sarcasm aside, that really is the case. I can say what I will but you and I both know the only thing that you are willing to spring from that mouth is 'I call bullshit.' to which all I can say what what I have already said.
You can take what I say any way you want. If it doesn't fit in with your idea of how the world works then feel free to ignore it.
It's not like I denied your claim wasn't valid as well, I simply said that the companies weren't singularly driven by the idea of maximizing profit.
Is it really that hard to believe that they perhaps weren't just greedy, but perhaps were actually greedy morons?
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Edit: My personal favorite is them trashing him for making hellgate:london. An easy cheapshot response is simply "Yea I made that. And you made D3 with a budget 100x the size I had. Whats your excuse?"
LOL! Just LOL!!!
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
The hell kinda evidence you expect me to give? I already mentioned what's up with the bioware stuff, if your browser can't google then I doubt it can use a link either so I can't help you there.
As for Diablo/Blizzard what do you want? A list of names for the people I talk to? Would you take credibility any differently if I admitted I am friends with people working on Titan?
What's that? No? So you're asking for evidence you won't accept as evidence in the first place? So you mean to tell me you should have just taken my previous comment and been done with it whether you believe me or not?
Wow, you need to chill out.
Claims require evidence, that's how it works. This is the internet, I don't know you from a stranger. Imagine me relating this to someone and saying "yeah, this random guy on the internet told me X, so it has to be so."
Yes, links would work fine. And yeah, if you expect me to google everything you say, then that's not particular fair. I provided a link for something I looked up and was saying. You could return the favor.
Friends working at the company is a bit harder to verify. But I won't make a big deal of it. Were they there when SC II was being worked on? Was that done differently? How about when previous Diablo games were being worked on?
Beyond that, I would only point out that just because your friends working on Titan didn't know hear much about D3 doesn't mean "no one at Blizzard outside of the D3 team knew anything." I'm sure corporate was keeping their eyes on it. That's how big companies work.
And I'm not saying that the Devs weren't bad per se. But I was saying when corporate policy pushes out creative people because it demands profit, profit, profit and that making games should not be fun...well, you'll have worse devs because of that and you'll get them encouraged to do bad things. The prime cause, imho, is that.
The hell kinda evidence you expect me to give? I already mentioned what's up with the bioware stuff, if your browser can't google then I doubt it can use a link either so I can't help you there.
As for Diablo/Blizzard what do you want? A list of names for the people I talk to? Would you take credibility any differently if I admitted I am friends with people working on Titan?
What's that? No? So you're asking for evidence you won't accept as evidence in the first place? So you mean to tell me you should have just taken my previous comment and been done with it whether you believe me or not?
Wow, you need to chill out.
Claims require evidence, that's how it works. This is the internet, I don't know you from a stranger. Imagine me relating this to someone and saying "yeah, this random guy on the internet told me X, so it has to be so."
Yes, links would work fine. And yeah, if you expect me to google everything you say, then that's not particular fair. I provided a link for something I looked up and was saying. You could return the favor.
Friends working at the company is a bit harder to verify. But I won't make a big deal of it. Were they there when SC II was being worked on? Was that done differently? How about when previous Diablo games were being worked on?
Beyond that, I would only point out that just because your friends working on Titan didn't know hear much about D3 doesn't mean "no one at Blizzard outside of the D3 team knew anything." I'm sure corporate was keeping their eyes on it. That's how big companies work.
And I'm not saying that the Devs weren't bad per se. But I was saying when corporate policy pushes out creative people because it demands profit, profit, profit and that making games should not be fun...well, you'll have worse devs because of that and you'll get them encouraged to do bad things. The prime cause, imho, is that.
... precisely!
Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.
It's amusing how so many employees fail to understand what "not" to broadcast on facebook. Surely most of these people felt as if they were having a conversation amongst friends and co-workers, yet they just aired their dirty laundry across the entire world.
That said, I've never thought of Diablo 3 as a bad game; however, after over 10 years of anticipation, the expecations for the new Diablo were just too high. From that perspective, I can sort of sympathize with the devs. Some "fans" of the game were impossible to please.
I see it takes blunt sarcasm to make one rescind annoyingly derisive behavior.
They started there a bit before starcraft 2's release and wasn't vested in it's development at all. Oddly post release he loves playing the competitive matches. So overall in regards to that title I don't think he's ever been particularly inquisitive about it and never really something we talked about. Only reason he talked to me about Diablo 3 was because my commentary on my general disinterestin in the title. He's not a very nosy kinda person so details out of him only come up as pieces of other relevant conversation. Want me to give you his name so he can get fired too but you can be happy?
So yeah, there certainly is room for error, but he's pretty good about saying things as he's spent time to understand them. He told me other teams didn't receive the release version to test until a month before they chucked into closed beta and failed to address internal reports. I can believe that.
Does that mean it was the only internal test, or that they hadn't tested one of the three entirely different versions of the game?
We even publicly know why they moved away from that version afterwards. And at this point there is a concession that I can make saying of course corporate has control and influence over their teams. Blizzard localized all their art design so all future games would use a similar design, gameplay taking on a similar stance of catering to their largest demographic.
It's not a hard guess what art style or demographic that ends up being related to. (I'll have to look in my old posts to find a reference to the gameplay shift)
This does not mean the dev team was constantly sending out updates to anyone, even the higher ups, remotely regularly. It's just part of blizzard that they have groups chipping away at odd ideas that they eventually take to one another and a project forms around it. They have gotten more structured as they have gotten larger, but it's something that my friend has noted as well that the size of the company, the differences in ho it needs to be managed, and the new versus old employees all ends up creating a very quirky internal culture clash.
As for the bioware thing like I said before the original commentary was removed. Best offhand is this, but it spins it more speculative, but at least notes the facts.
The problem is that when Diablo 2 was released, it was ahead of its time. Diablo 3 was not. Instead, Diablo 3 was a sloppy model of Diablo 2...but with more linear story and class progression.
To be perfectly honest, Diablo 3 has been fatastic after their latest patch. The "leet" folks ar enot upset because their once "sick gear" is now just decent.
I enjoyed D3 for the first play through but I find it does not hold any long term appeal to me. What gave D2 longevity for me was that each character I built was different from its predecessor. In D3 every barbarian is the same as every other of the same level. There is no reason or real incentive to create a second character of the same class. I think that fundamental change is why I stopped playing after the first month.
Originally posted by ZBergz I enjoyed D3 for the first play through but I find it does not hold any long term appeal to me. What gave D2 longevity for me was that each character I built was different from its predecessor. In D3 every barbarian is the same as every other of the same level. There is no reason or real incentive to create a second character of the same class. I think that fundamental change is why I stopped playing after the first month.
So instead of making a second Barbarian, make a Monk or Wizard. I don't understand why it HAS to be the same class. When I play an MMO (D3 is not an MMO) I don't make an alt of the same class. I choose other classes for diversity.
So just because D2 did it one way doesn't mean every other game will do the same. And since D3 isn't exactly like D2, that doesn't mean it's not a good game. I just means it's not D2.
Originally posted by ZBergz I enjoyed D3 for the first play through but I find it does not hold any long term appeal to me. What gave D2 longevity for me was that each character I built was different from its predecessor. In D3 every barbarian is the same as every other of the same level. There is no reason or real incentive to create a second character of the same class. I think that fundamental change is why I stopped playing after the first month.
So instead of making a second Barbarian, make a Monk or Wizard. I don't understand why it HAS to be the same class. When I play an MMO (D3 is not an MMO) I don't make an alt of the same class. I choose other classes for diversity.
So just because D2 did it one way doesn't mean every other game will do the same. And since D3 isn't exactly like D2, that doesn't mean it's not a good game. I just means it's not D2.
Exactly. Sure, there is no point in creating a second barbarian (in fact, i have exactly one of every class) but you can explore different barbarian build. Just go read D3 forum ... each class has lots of different viable builds. I know the wiz class best. There are at least 3-4 builds with endless variations.
In some sense, this is BETTER. You can explore different playstyles WITHOUT having to level up another toon.
Comments
And that highlights the problem with moden gaming. Companies need to realise that modern gamers won't wiat around for an expansion or two to make the game great, it needs to be on release or they'll walk away screaming FAIL at the top of their lungs.
Even if you think 'who cares what they think anyway, they're probably a minority', you need to remember that gamers are probably the most bitter community out there. We don't seem to have the capacity for just letting things go and carrying on. As someone still playing Allods Online I see this every day with that game. Someone on a forum dares to mention they are enjoying it and are immediately told how crap the game is by people who haven't gone near it in two years and called either an idiot or someone working for Allods marketing.
SWTOR will have a hard time turning public opnion around because the people who now hate that game will run in down at every chance they get until the game is dead, even for a while after and even Bioware fix all the things they currently hate about it
English. Learn it. No contradiction. Outside the team does not mean outside the company.
As for drach that internal testing on diablo 3 is in reference to their own team, not the rest of the company. Not to mention I also noted that I was talking about the release version, not one of the three previous versions that team went through. So actually in retrospect that could be talking about the third version?
With Bioware that comment came out a while ago and the original commentary on it has since been pulled by an angry Bioware. You can still find info on it floating about if you look for commentary on Mass Effect's writing team.
And finally in quick regard to the other old titles, I do not know much about id or anyone that made Quake or Doom. I already mentioned Diablo and Diablo 2 managed to spend most it's lifecycle internally being played. And Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest I don't know well because I have never talked to, seen, or read/listened to commentary from anyone at Enix, Square Soft, or Square Enix.
Though it's fair to assume the lack of deep story on the id titles means they really didn't need much review.
You can take what I say any way you want. If it doesn't fit in with your idea of how the world works then feel free to ignore it.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
It's the best ARPG since D2, most diverse classes, most responsive combat and satisfying effects of the same combat.
You don't have to buy anything, why you let yourself get confused by the AH and stress about it is your problem, but like I said, Blizzard will patch it to the point when you won't feel that way. It started already, one of the first coments on another forum to this new patch is that Inferno is now facerollable, so I guess you're just not hardcore enough to be able to do it.
I'm responding to your comments, not Metacritic, or Amazon, but what ever your reasoning, you can't justify 3.5 or 1 for a game of this quality.
I'm some one who enjoys games ranging from Gran Turismo, Uncharted, The Witcher, Magicka, Flower, God of War, World of Warcraft and still thinks Grim Fandango and Carmaggedon 1 are two best games I ever played.
I'm no expert in Diablo, I only have 200 hours of playtime in D3 and 20ish hours in Titan Quest, but I believe my opinions are far more important than someones who was in advance looking for something that he wasn't gonna get.
So who are you then, dismissing my opinions as inconsequential only on the merrits of my lack of experience with a game over 10 years old? I like good games and I enjoy finding what's fun in them more than I do finding flaws. I can't say how worthy of a successor to Diablo legacy Diablo 3 was (in your mind), but I don't even care about that kind of thinking. For the money spent and the amount of fun I got out of it, it's right up there with other Blizzard games, and all the other great games I played. Not to mention all of the things that will change or be updated in the games lifespan (not that it's any kind of redeeming factor to you), but I'll come back for every major patch and I'll probably stay for a while longer when PVP comes. It's the same story with every Blizzard game and your kind of reasoning will grow less and less relevant as the game gets older.
All I see here is what I see in other popular games threads, bunch of people getting on a soapbox and presenting THEIR reason as the supreme proof of D3s failings. You use words like "spirit" or "successor", that shows me only one thing, you didn't get exactly what you wanted and now that's some kind of proof. Give me a break and get in line.
People like you have their uses too I guess, if you weren't so vocal about your opinions, we wouldn't get this huge update so soon with new systems added and old stuff tweaked to an impressive level, just for a patch.
D1 and D2 are both good games. Yes, they are different. But that is OK. D3 is not a good game... That is the significant difference. D1 and D2 are both based on the same general philosofi. -Make fun games for gamers. D3:s exists for profit only. The philosofi is -profit first... Thats why there is a P2W RMAH. Its designed for profit not for fun...
Its true that some D1 fans complained about D2 at first(I was one of them). But it was certainly not for the same reasons.
I beg to differ on the 'most diverse classes' part. Playing cookie cutter builds/classes in a genre that , to me, was all about building a character killed D3 for me.
Not that I have a problem with other people playing it; I just don't enjoy it.
Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.
Interesting that you bring up Allods. I really liked the look of the game, and it looked like fun as well. What totally turned me off was the lack of PvE servers and their antics with the cash shop. I normally have no problem with cash shops (the Dev's deserve to benefit from their hard work), but that was over the line, even for me. I take it they still have no PvE servers?
As for SWTOR, thats one of the very few MMO's that I've ever ended my sub in the second month (and thats only because they had already billed me for the second month, by the time I'd decided to leave.). I took a trooper to level 50 (cap) and I have no intention of ever going back. Its a fun game up into the upper 20's or so (and the voice acting really adds to the story), but after that, the rough edges start piling up, and by the end cap, its just not worth it any more (at least to me).
Too many design mistakes, and pressure to release it too soon added up. Its too bad, as it could have been a much better game.
This could have been easily avoided if they didn't mistyped the game name... it should have been named Real Money Auction House 1 instead of Diablo 3. They will learn from this, and then Titan will be renamed to RMAH 2 when it comes out.
The sad thing here is that I was idiot enough to buy this "game", and I can't get my money back now
Of course you can. I make way more than $60 on the RMAH.
He probably has some ethics and a concience.
Something Blizzard lost after the success of WoW. You should use some of those great RMAH earnings to buy a $40.00 ticket so you can watch Blizzcon on your PC.
forget about gold farmer's, we got Blizz farmer's now.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Diverse classes? Satisfying effects?
Stress about the AH?
You are in your own world. I am getting flashbacks to when I discussed SWTOR with Bioware fanatics and I got the same response.
"You dont have to worry, the hole is a feature! Stop stressing over it"
"Bioware will patch up the game in no time and then we'll see a huge increase in subscribers"
"If you dont like the game, go back to WoW - its too hardcore for you"
"Stop complaining - do you know how much time and effort went into this game? Years! The Bioware devs deserve a break"
etc...etc...etc...
I've stopped playing the game a month ago. A very easy inferno doesnt fix a thing. The game has fundamental design problems that no superficial patch will ever fix. They will never fix the game - it will still be a boring, shallow and dissapointing abomination of a game that only sold so much because it rode on the reputation of its predecessors.
You are not responding to my comments. All you are doing are justifying a broken and dead game.
Just like the Bioware people when SWTOR was sinking and they didnt want to acknowledge it.
Listen: If you like Diablo 3, then good for you.
But many gamers dont, and for good reason. Blizzard sullied themselves all over this game. The original people that worked on D2 are far gone and it shows in the game. Blizzard is more and more looking like EA and is only a shadow of its former self.
I am right there with ya, Buddy.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
D3 has the most character builds. After 1.04, just for Wiz ... viable builds include (you can easily get this info reading any D3 forums that discusses classes).
- Archon build if you have high DPS .. or if you farm easier Act (i use it on Act 1).
- AO kiting build (i use a variant of this in Act 2/3)
- blizz/hydra kiting build
- WW CM build (still viable if you have the gear)
- A *new* Meteor CM build
I am also exploring if Arcane Torrent can replace arcane orb .. since its damage was buffed to a huge degree.
And each build has different play style, and many variations. I consider D3 much more diverse, in terms of char build, than WOW, and most MMOs.
I'm going to want to see some evidence that things were quite different in this regard rather than just your say-so.
The hell kinda evidence you expect me to give? I already mentioned what's up with the bioware stuff, if your browser can't google then I doubt it can use a link either so I can't help you there.
As for Diablo/Blizzard what do you want? A list of names for the people I talk to? Would you take credibility any differently if I admitted I am friends with people working on Titan?
What's that? No? So you're asking for evidence you won't accept as evidence in the first place? So you mean to tell me you should have just taken my previous comment and been done with it whether you believe me or not?
Oh my. Why didn't you say so!
Sarcasm aside, that really is the case. I can say what I will but you and I both know the only thing that you are willing to spring from that mouth is 'I call bullshit.' to which all I can say what what I have already said.
You can take what I say any way you want. If it doesn't fit in with your idea of how the world works then feel free to ignore it.
It's not like I denied your claim wasn't valid as well, I simply said that the companies weren't singularly driven by the idea of maximizing profit.
Is it really that hard to believe that they perhaps weren't just greedy, but perhaps were actually greedy morons?
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
LOL! Just LOL!!!
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Wow, you need to chill out.
Claims require evidence, that's how it works. This is the internet, I don't know you from a stranger. Imagine me relating this to someone and saying "yeah, this random guy on the internet told me X, so it has to be so."
Yes, links would work fine. And yeah, if you expect me to google everything you say, then that's not particular fair. I provided a link for something I looked up and was saying. You could return the favor.
Friends working at the company is a bit harder to verify. But I won't make a big deal of it. Were they there when SC II was being worked on? Was that done differently? How about when previous Diablo games were being worked on?
Beyond that, I would only point out that just because your friends working on Titan didn't know hear much about D3 doesn't mean "no one at Blizzard outside of the D3 team knew anything." I'm sure corporate was keeping their eyes on it. That's how big companies work.
And I'm not saying that the Devs weren't bad per se. But I was saying when corporate policy pushes out creative people because it demands profit, profit, profit and that making games should not be fun...well, you'll have worse devs because of that and you'll get them encouraged to do bad things. The prime cause, imho, is that.
... precisely!
Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.
It's amusing how so many employees fail to understand what "not" to broadcast on facebook. Surely most of these people felt as if they were having a conversation amongst friends and co-workers, yet they just aired their dirty laundry across the entire world.
That said, I've never thought of Diablo 3 as a bad game; however, after over 10 years of anticipation, the expecations for the new Diablo were just too high. From that perspective, I can sort of sympathize with the devs. Some "fans" of the game were impossible to please.
I see it takes blunt sarcasm to make one rescind annoyingly derisive behavior.
They started there a bit before starcraft 2's release and wasn't vested in it's development at all. Oddly post release he loves playing the competitive matches. So overall in regards to that title I don't think he's ever been particularly inquisitive about it and never really something we talked about. Only reason he talked to me about Diablo 3 was because my commentary on my general disinterestin in the title. He's not a very nosy kinda person so details out of him only come up as pieces of other relevant conversation. Want me to give you his name so he can get fired too but you can be happy?
So yeah, there certainly is room for error, but he's pretty good about saying things as he's spent time to understand them. He told me other teams didn't receive the release version to test until a month before they chucked into closed beta and failed to address internal reports. I can believe that.
Does that mean it was the only internal test, or that they hadn't tested one of the three entirely different versions of the game?
One of the previous versions we do know some about being the version that was still in development in 2005. http://kotaku.com/5761172/this-is-what-diablo-iii-looked-like-a-long-time-ago/gallery/1
We even publicly know why they moved away from that version afterwards. And at this point there is a concession that I can make saying of course corporate has control and influence over their teams. Blizzard localized all their art design so all future games would use a similar design, gameplay taking on a similar stance of catering to their largest demographic.
It's not a hard guess what art style or demographic that ends up being related to. (I'll have to look in my old posts to find a reference to the gameplay shift)
This does not mean the dev team was constantly sending out updates to anyone, even the higher ups, remotely regularly. It's just part of blizzard that they have groups chipping away at odd ideas that they eventually take to one another and a project forms around it. They have gotten more structured as they have gotten larger, but it's something that my friend has noted as well that the size of the company, the differences in ho it needs to be managed, and the new versus old employees all ends up creating a very quirky internal culture clash.
As for the bioware thing like I said before the original commentary was removed. Best offhand is this, but it spins it more speculative, but at least notes the facts.
http://pikigeek.com/2012/03/22/controversy-erupts-over-mass-effect-3-writers-forum-post-name-release/
EDIT: And soul, please just don't say things.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
The problem is that when Diablo 2 was released, it was ahead of its time. Diablo 3 was not. Instead, Diablo 3 was a sloppy model of Diablo 2...but with more linear story and class progression.
To be perfectly honest, Diablo 3 has been fatastic after their latest patch. The "leet" folks ar enot upset because their once "sick gear" is now just decent.
Grim Dawn, the next great action rpg!
http://www.grimdawn.com/
Similar I meant, however the point was that D3 still has the potential to be a great game.
I know what I'm saying is falling on deaf ears but I just wanted to clarify my point.
So instead of making a second Barbarian, make a Monk or Wizard. I don't understand why it HAS to be the same class. When I play an MMO (D3 is not an MMO) I don't make an alt of the same class. I choose other classes for diversity.
So just because D2 did it one way doesn't mean every other game will do the same. And since D3 isn't exactly like D2, that doesn't mean it's not a good game. I just means it's not D2.
Exactly. Sure, there is no point in creating a second barbarian (in fact, i have exactly one of every class) but you can explore different barbarian build. Just go read D3 forum ... each class has lots of different viable builds. I know the wiz class best. There are at least 3-4 builds with endless variations.
In some sense, this is BETTER. You can explore different playstyles WITHOUT having to level up another toon.