Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: Tiberious Thessalonia on 15 May 2012, 10:55
-
So, is anyone else currently getting their lives eaten by this? I pre-ordered a while ago, got it installed, and woke up at 4 am to be able to play it.
The release was a little crappy, with people having trouble logging in, but as I understand it that is starting to get ironed out now, and the general reaction I've been reading online (IE away from the official forums, because official forums are always awful. Take a look at EVE's for example) has been overwhelmingly positive, except from people who didn't seem to play Diablo I and Diablo II (one complaint I saw was about the random maps :ugh:)
I made a Wizard as my first character, probably going to try a Witch Doctor next.
Oh, and uh, I might not be in EVE for a while. Just so you know.
-
DIE TOASTER!!!!
Oh wait, wrong game we're talking about. I haven't really invested too much time into the Diablo series, but I did beta test Diablo III and I have the game if I choose to play it. Personally, it's not consuming my life much right now.
You will be missed in-game.
-
I dislike everything about Diablo, but I have a few friends whom I owe some playtime with, so I imagine I'll be doing the click-loot-instant gratification circle as well.
-
Never played Diablo, tried a demo of Diablo II and was not hugely impressed. Loot fetishism RPGs have never been a big thing for me. I play RPGs for the stories, generally, not the ability to do horrendous amounts of damage to everything in sight. Though that's always a fun bonus.
-
Then yes, Mortiis, you will be dissapointed. Although, I will say that I am enjoying the D3 story a lot more than the D2 one, since the D3 story seems to be a lot more present.
I imagine after a few playthroughs I'll be ignoring everything anybody says in short order like I do in d2, but in the mean time its nice to actually give a shit about cutscenes again!
-
D2 on Hardcore was my favorite, not to mention dueling as soon as you were able. My attention span for leveling up is short so I found it to be the most entertaining way to play. Especially in a group of friends; roll new characters, play for a night, then have gladiator matches to the death.
As I understand D3 has no PVP yet? I'll get the game at some point I think, but those Arenas will likely be my main attraction.
-
Yeah, no PvP as yet. Not sure what they are doing as far as hardcore PvP goes. Considering some of the posts Ive seen coming out of the Blizzard forums complaining about things that are fairly staple Diablo things (I'm still waiting on 'I made a hardcore character because I am hardcore, but when I died my character died for good! FUBLIZ!!11one') I wouldn't be surprised if they dont put hardcore PvP in.
They are keeping the Real Money Auction House out of Hardcore because I am pretty certain they know that some idiot is going to spend a thousand dollars on gear and then get killed 5 minutes later and try to sue them.
-
Never played Diablo, tried a demo of Diablo II and was not hugely impressed. Loot fetishism RPGs have never been a big thing for me. I play RPGs for the stories, generally, not the ability to do horrendous amounts of damage to everything in sight. Though that's always a fun bonus.
Same.
-
It's D2 with an updated graphics engine a few new classes and an improved craft system.
I'll wait till the hubbub settles down and it's cheap in the summer sales, when I have both money AND time.
-
I would be more compelled if there was (is?) a class like the Necromancer from Diablo 2. I really dig in-direct control and I had a good deal of great nights drinking beer while my minions tore things apart, supported here and there by a curse or magic missile.
-
Really? My necro went afk while his Blood Golem murdered everything.
Seems the closest to it now though is the witch doctor.
-
Actually the Witch Doctor is pretty much just like the old Necro; Curses, damage spells and summonables.
I have a bunch of RL friends getting this so I feel compelled. Will probably wait a week for the bustle to die down and the kinks to be worked out.
-
Bought it, couldn't install, spent more than enough time hunting and trying various fixes (provided by the community). Nothing.
Frankly, I don't know even what to say.
-
The launch went pretty terribly too. You know you've cocked something up with your launch when the top trend on Twitter worldwide is one of your error messages. :bash:
-
The launch went pretty terribly too. You know you've cocked something up with your launch when the top trend on Twitter worldwide is one of your error messages. :bash:
There is/was an Error 37 thread on EVEO, I had a hard time not laughing at the office when I saw it. :lol:
-
Always-On DRM. Nothankyou, assholes. That does not belong in a game purported to have a singleplayer option. Force that god damn real money auction house on other people that way, I'll wait until Uncle Bay the Pirate can lend it to me.
-
Judging from the anguished cries and howls on my Steam friendslist, it's not even 'always on' it'd seem.
-
WAT GIES A GAME THAT BROKE EVERY ONLINE PREORDER RECORD IN EXISTENCE ISN'T FUNCTIONING FLAWLESSLY LESS THAN 24 HOURS AFTER LAUNCH WAT I DON'T EVEN
Seriously, the fact that this is remotely surprising to anyone a) acquainted with Blizzard in the last 10 years or b) acquainted with any online game release in the history of online gaming is the only surprise to me.
-
Definitely true, of course. It is a bit surprising that no one ever seems to learn on the dev's side, though. Blizzard has released a ton of games using Bnet by now and they shouldn't be taken with their pants down every damn time. Releasing a big title? Haul out every damn backup server and call in every favor you can from every damn ISP out there. There'll be some major data traffic going on, both on the login and game servers. This is not news.
So yes, while the gamers really shouldn't be surprised, neither should the devs at this point.
-
It's kind of upsetting how terribly the launch went for D3. Blizzard used to be such a strong company in terms of product quality and customer service. Right around the end of Wrath of the Lich King from World of Warcraft, and with the merge with Activision, things have apparently gone down hill for them. :(
I fully understand the development side and the demands on a network for this kind of thing, but this has become a repetitive issue for Blizzard lately. A few troubles here and there is completely understandable, but when those troubles become a repetitive issue, something should be addressed. Blizzard used to be on top of these kinds of things.
-
WAT GIES A GAME THAT BROKE EVERY ONLINE PREORDER RECORD IN EXISTENCE ISN'T FUNCTIONING FLAWLESSLY LESS THAN 24 HOURS AFTER LAUNCH WAT I DON'T EVEN
Seriously, the fact that this is remotely surprising to anyone a) acquainted with Blizzard in the last 10 years or b) acquainted with any online game release in the history of online gaming is the only surprise to me.
Well....
It's kind of a single player game - is many people's argument.
My own beef is more about not getting it to work (install) at all.
-
WAT GIES A GAME THAT BROKE EVERY ONLINE PREORDER RECORD IN EXISTENCE ISN'T FUNCTIONING FLAWLESSLY LESS THAN 24 HOURS AFTER LAUNCH WAT I DON'T EVEN
Seriously, the fact that this is remotely surprising to anyone a) acquainted with Blizzard in the last 10 years or b) acquainted with any online game release in the history of online gaming is the only surprise to me.
Well....
It's kind of a single player game - is many people's argument.
Don't say that anywhere else. The horde of raging howlermonkeys on crack will come down on you with a vengeance. Apparently playing any of the Diablo games singleplayer is some sort of massive sin. I personally hold the same viewpoint and would actually have paid for the damn thing if the singleplayer was offline enabled, but Blizz is hellbent on pushing that auction house on everyone.
Then again, right now I'm kind of glad I've saved that money. Friends of mine I spent a lot of time with in D2:LOD are furious. Apparently Blizzard managed (somehow, personally I can't even contemplate the concept without my brain herniating) to dumb down the game. There's no stat management, no skilltrees or anything. Every level whatever of whatever class will be -exactly- the same except for gear. No skilltrees, nothing. There'll be no Blizz Sorcs, no Summonmancers, no Hammerdins or Zealadins, Javazons or anything. Every character of the same class and level will be perfectly similar.
If that's not fucking retarded, I don't know what is.
-
There's no stat management, no skilltrees or anything. Every level whatever of whatever class will be -exactly- the same except for gear. No skilltrees, nothing. There'll be no Blizz Sorcs, no Summonmancers, no Hammerdins or Zealadins, Javazons or anything. Every character of the same class and level will be perfectly similar.
The point in time when I learned that about the game was the exact point when I lost any interest I had. And since I've played the crap out of D2, that means it was not a tiny amount of interest.
-
WAT GIES A GAME THAT BROKE EVERY ONLINE PREORDER RECORD IN EXISTENCE ISN'T FUNCTIONING FLAWLESSLY LESS THAN 24 HOURS AFTER LAUNCH WAT I DON'T EVEN
Seriously, the fact that this is remotely surprising to anyone a) acquainted with Blizzard in the last 10 years or b) acquainted with any online game release in the history of online gaming is the only surprise to me.
Well....
It's kind of a single player game - is many people's argument.
Don't say that anywhere else. The horde of raging howlermonkeys on crack will come down on you with a vengeance. Apparently playing any of the Diablo games singleplayer is some sort of massive sin. I personally hold the same viewpoint and would actually have paid for the damn thing if the singleplayer was offline enabled, but Blizz is hellbent on pushing that auction house on everyone.
Then again, right now I'm kind of glad I've saved that money. Friends of mine I spent a lot of time with in D2:LOD are furious. Apparently Blizzard managed (somehow, personally I can't even contemplate the concept without my brain herniating) to dumb down the game. There's no stat management, no skilltrees or anything. Every level whatever of whatever class will be -exactly- the same except for gear. No skilltrees, nothing. There'll be no Blizz Sorcs, no Summonmancers, no Hammerdins or Zealadins, Javazons or anything. Every character of the same class and level will be perfectly similar.
If that's not fucking retarded, I don't know what is.
The only think that surprises me about this, is the fact that I found this surprising. How fucking retarded am I?
Dunno, but apparently it's pretty bad. I liked Diablo I allot because it was simplistic, easy to get into, entertaining, but hard. Dear god was it hard. I often ended up playing through half of the game then hitting a wall of hard mobs that I simply could not beat. Then re-start with that toon half-way done and do it again, JUST TO BE ABLE TO FINISH THE DAMN GAME AT ALL. Hilariously sad fact; I never actually did. I never once beat Diablo I.
Then came Diablo II and I was ecstatic. It was more of the same, the kind of game people could get into easily but not easily beat, though it was markedly easier than the first one. I did actually beat it, too. LOD as well. It was entertaining, and the variety of characters, play-styles and customizations able to you was very impressive - I could take a toon and play the game exactly however I wanted it. My only regret is that I was late out and at the time I had questionable internet access at best. So very little online play for me.
And now we have Diablo III, and I pretty much swore I'd never touch this shit.
Where do I start... oh yeah, the whole "Diablo FUCKING NUMBER 3" thingy. Diablo who? Oh yeah, that guy I killed in Diablo II, who is pretty much perma-dead, along with his fail-brothers, who also happen to be perma-dead. And now they make another game named the same. Right, so they either ride on a known game-name, ret-con the end of Diablo II, or whatever.
Then there is the pay-to-fucking-win issue with the auction-house where you keep paying real money for digital items to make you bigger, better badder. Gone are the the joy of beating the game or others fair and square - you can now enjoy losing to people who are not better than you, no - they prioritize their finances different from than you. Or just have more money than brains, alternatively. No thanks.
And if those two were not bad enough, now we got this, and another horribly Blizzard game launch. They never seem to fucking learn, do they?
I actually enjoyed WoW, when I played it. I honestly enjoyed kicking ass and having fun with RL friends, shoving frail-looking but well-armored Paladin-power Draenei hooves into the crouch-sections of Orcs, Trolls and Fucking Tauren everywhere, and to this day I miss that wonderful, fun race.
But I don't miss WoW. I don't miss the pathetic, simplified, brain-dead requires-no-skill game-play they introduced, and I don't miss their constant fucking around with classes, to the point where they made Warriors , perhaps my Number 1 favorite class, entirely obsolete. I will not miss Diablo III, and right now I'll spend the rest of the day wondering why the hell I did not see this failure coming. I knew it was going to be bad, but somewhere I still had a little faith Blizzard were going to make an interesting, challenging game. How very fucking stupid of me.
-
Further interrogation of those friends also reveal that death is apparently not problematic anymore. While death at a boss used to mean a VERY dangerous corpse-run and subsequent Benny Hill sequence while sorting out loot and gear, now it just means that you respawn with your gold and gear at the latest 'checkpoint'. That's right ladies and gentlemen, we have the equivalent of a pre-boss autosave. Apparently your gear takes a durability hit, but that's seemingly it.
This went from 'kind of special' to 'anancephaly' in no time.
-
Just a few notes: I am very much enjoying the game so far. Its a lot of fun to play.
Addressing some of the criticisms. There is no real excuse for the server issues that they've been having. I 100% understand and support the decision to put the game online only (I haven't played Diablo offline since Diablo 1), as this is going to keep botters, hackers, and other forms of cheaters out. The RMAH is Blizzard addressing the fact that this sort of thing was going to come up anyways, since sites like D2jsp and such are out there, and they want to provide a legal, and safe way to spend money on the game. This also makes sure they get a cut of the action, of course. As a friend of mine yesterday put it, "Why yes, I want to give my credit card number to a company that is already in business doing something illegal, of course!"
There's no stat management, no skilltrees or anything. Every level whatever of whatever class will be -exactly- the same except for gear. No skilltrees, nothing. There'll be no Blizz Sorcs, no Summonmancers, no Hammerdins or Zealadins, Javazons or anything. Every character of the same class and level will be perfectly similar.
This is incredibly wrong. You have access to all the powers you can get at a certain level, sure, but you can only pick six of them at a time, and all of them are customizable to the point of basically becoming new powers through the rune system. As to stats management... well, if you think that there was stats management in Diablo II, I don't know what to tell you. The stat layout for -every class- was 'Enough Strength and Dex to use your gear, everything else into Vitality. Energy? Pssht.'
Mostly, what I am enjoying is the experimentation I get to do, figuring out how everything works. I am playing a Wizard, and I switch up my build every time I play, working with new powers to see how they work together, figuring out what runes seem to work well with what style of play. Best of all, I havent had to make a brand new character and go through 8 hours of gameplay to test each of them out. Its incredibly satisfying to the vidyagame scientist in me.
-
This is incredibly wrong. You have access to all the powers you can get at a certain level, sure, but you can only pick six of them at a time, and all of them are customizable to the point of basically becoming new powers through the rune system.
This is actually good to hear.
-
There's no stat management, no skilltrees or anything. Every level whatever of whatever class will be -exactly- the same except for gear. No skilltrees, nothing. There'll be no Blizz Sorcs, no Summonmancers, no Hammerdins or Zealadins, Javazons or anything. Every character of the same class and level will be perfectly similar.
This is incredibly wrong. You have access to all the powers you can get at a certain level, sure, but you can only pick six of them at a time, and all of them are customizable to the point of basically becoming new powers through the rune system. As to stats management... well, if you think that there was stats management in Diablo II, I don't know what to tell you. The stat layout for -every class- was 'Enough Strength and Dex to use your gear, everything else into Vitality. Energy? Pssht.'
Mostly, what I am enjoying is the experimentation I get to do, figuring out how everything works. I am playing a Wizard, and I switch up my build every time I play, working with new powers to see how they work together, figuring out what runes seem to work well with what style of play. Best of all, I havent had to make a brand new character and go through 8 hours of gameplay to test each of them out. Its incredibly satisfying to the vidyagame scientist in me.
Ran this by my friends. Turns out, I'm actually right. Yes, you can only pick so and so many of them at a time, but it takes less than five seconds to switch out a skill and choose the rune for it, so it's pretty much no different from Diablo 2 in that regard. Secondly, there being no skilltrees mean that any level 30 whatever will have access to the exact same skills and runes that any other level 30 of the same class does. So in other words, no difference between characters. Dumbed down into retardation.
Secondly, the stat layout for different classes was far more variable than 'enough Str and Dex to use your gear and everything else in Vit' depending on your chosen class. That and your support for the always-online DRM for singleplayer makes no sense. What the hell does it matter to you or Blizzard if singleplayer people use cheats? Having to log on for multiplayer makes perfect sense, but there's no point in punishing singleplayer people with laggy servers and shitty login problems. Worse yet, taking away their game when the ISP decides to derp.
There's no excuse for the always-on DRM and there's no excuse for dumbing down the game into retardation. If there's such great problems with people screwing up a charbuild, set up some gold-chewing NPC that'll let you retrain if you pull your pants down and endure a stormy ride for a while.
-
Yeah. Basically, the first rune you get for a power will almost always be "That power, +1", because Blizzard really wants you to use the rune system whenever you have it available. Other runes will then change the way that power works on a fundamental level.
Lets take the first power a monk has access to (Fists of Thunder), for instance (I am doing this because I haven't actually played a monk yet).
At base, the power does an incredibly fast attack that does 110% of your weapon damage, and every third attack does a limited AOE that knocks enemies back.
The runes that you can pick for this, and the level you get them at, are:
Thunderclap: Teleport to the target, and unleash an electric shockwave with each attack that does 35% weapon damage to all enemies within 6 yards in front of you: Level 6
Lightning Flash: Increases your chance to dodge by 12% for 2 seconds (presumably with each attack): Level 14
Static Charge: Your primary target is charged with static electricity and takes 35% weapon damage whenever you attack a different enemy with Fists of Thunder: Level 30
Quickening: Critical hits generate an additional 15 spirit: Level 42
Bounding Light: Every third strike releases chain lightning instead of a shockwave. Each lightning strike does 73% weapon damage as lightning: Level 52
That is one power. The most basic power you get, in fact, and even with that there is an incredible amount of customization. Some runes will work for some runes, and some will work for others.
And if you want to experiment, you don't have to reroll an entirely new character to figure out how Bounding Light works.
-
Miz, it's not dumbed down into retardation. I said you have access to everything, and you do, but that doesnt mean you can USE everything all the time, or that every combination of skills is going to work with the exact same efficiency. If I make a build that is entirely AoE focused, Im not going to be able to deal with bosses that well. And yes, I can just switch out to something that does deal with bosses, but the Nephilim's Valor buff you start getting at Level 60 rewards you for sticking with your build and going through an act. I don't think you're going to see as many Cookie Cutter builds as you did in Diablo II, and most importantly, you don't end up rerolling because you accidently stuck a point into bone shield or something.
Really, all I can suggest is trying it. If you arent willing to do that because of the always online thing, that's okay too.
However, I understand the logic behind going online. The reason why Diablo II ended up getting so inundated with Stones of Jordan and other high-value supposedly ultra rare items was because people were using the fact that so much was handled by the client-side of the architecture that it was very, very easy to cheat. The fact that things are handled server side is making it much harder to cheat, but it requires that the client be connected to the server. THis has its upsides and its downsides. Personally, the downsides do not outweigh the upsides.
-
You really don't get it, do you? It's already been stated, repeatedly: No one minds having to log on for fucking multiplayer. Forcing SINGLEPLAYER to have to log on to Battlenet is absolutely fucking retarded and serves absolutely no purpose. Who cares if a singleplayer character carries around fifteen Shakos and sprays a hundred SoJ when they sneeze? It affects no one but themselves. (Besides, you didn't need to cheat for any of those. Bugging Mephisto solo or on an mp server (or just straight up bitchslapping him) took less than two-three minutes. A single day and you had several SoJ and almost anything else you wanted.)
And yes, it's dumbed down into retardation if you get every last skill and every last rune handed to you for free. No choices, no trees, no nothing. That is -very- dumbed down. It doesn't matter if there's a thousand different combinations of skills and runes when they're handed to you for free and you don't have to sacrifice anything to get it. It's about strengths and weaknesses. You are given ALL the strengths and none of the weaknesses. Get killed by a boss because you're AoE? Herpaderp, respawn right outside the boss chamber and reset skills to whatever is your class' singletarget roflstomp. Reset to AoE and go lulz around the rest of the map afterwards. Dumbed... the... fuck... down...
No balancing your build so you can do it all or make yourself excellent at something and terribad at something else. No thought going into builds and stat allocation. No CHOICES. Doesn't matter if you have to set some skills and not get -immediate- access to the rest when there's absolutely nothing stopping you from just spending ten seconds setting up a new set of skills + runes.
Diablo 2 was nowhere near perfect with it's skilltree system and it's stat allocations. The respecc option introduced once Blizz had played around with the same skilltree system in WoW for a while fixed some of it. The rest has come along in various games over the years through simple balancing and so on. Hell, even the Rune system in D3 is a very welcome addition.
Complete removal of skilltrees, stats and fucking options? Retarded. Dumbed down into retardation.
-
You aren't having options removed, though. You have more options. This is a good thing. Diablo II would be the same thing if they did the smart idea and had you have fairly easy respecs. The way they handled it even when they finally added them was that you had three over the entire course of your characters career. This helped a lot, don't get me wrong, but it still meant that you had the risk of having to trash an entire character because you accidently misclicked or misread bonespear for bone armor or something stupid like that on your third and final go.
You have a point with the online only thing, you really do. I just disagree that it is as huge an issue as you are making it out to be, but in the end thats your choice. Cool?
-
As an EVE player I embrace penalties and consequences for actions, be them good or bad.
I think I will stick with Shogun 2 and perhaps get Diablo 3 when it goes on sale...
-
You aren't having options removed, though. You have more options. This is a good thing. Diablo II would be the same thing if they did the smart idea and had you have fairly easy respecs. The way they handled it even when they finally added them was that you had three over the entire course of your characters career. This helped a lot, don't get me wrong, but it still meant that you had the risk of having to trash an entire character because you accidently misclicked or misread bonespear for bone armor or something stupid like that on your third and final go.
You have a point with the online only thing, you really do. I just disagree that it is as huge an issue as you are making it out to be, but in the end thats your choice. Cool?
You are having options removed. When you are given EVERYTHING, you can choose nothing. You get the choices to make a character the way you want it taken away, because none of the options matter five seconds from now. This is a very bad thing. Coupled with fucking Checkpoints(!) and insta-respawns with just a piddly durability loss on death, it's a HORRIBAD thing. No weaknesses. None. THAT is dumbed down.
You may be happy with it and you may enjoy having all the risk taken away. (Seriously, if you had to trash an entire character, you fucked up so badly you god damn deserved it.) A lot of the rest of us want that risk. We want choices to fucking matter. We want fuckups to matter. It's okay to let you have some emergency outs like an expensive respecc or something, but this is taking it way too far. It's the complete removal of weaknesses and tit for tat.
AoE at the expense of singletarget power. Maybe massive amounts of both, but low survivability. Mobility focused character with high singletarget pew vs tank focused target with massive AoE. (Zealadin vs Hammerdin for instance) None of these weaknesses or balances exist when you can just go from one to the other in less than five seconds. So not a good thing.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/7NpuK.png)
:lol:
-
Lack of offline single player seems kinda silly, but it's the decision they made for the programming structure of the game. As Tibs said, you could cheat in D2 (even and especially in multiplayer) because of how much was done client side. The solution is to run more server side. The problem is that this requires connection to the server. The solution to that would be to essentially program two different games - D3 single player to run client side, and D3 multi to run server. They decided not to do this. It sucks for people who don't want to deal with an internet connection, but it's the design decision they made. After the lack of LAN support for SC2, this isn't a huge surprise, even if it pisses me off something fierce.
The removal of corpse runs, however, is a tragedy, plain and simple.
The issue with skills seems like the direction games are going, unfortunately. The almighty dollar demands that you make a game that appeals to more people. People like to be able to change their mind without having to make an entirely new character. Thus, permanent, irreversible decisions like the old D2 skill trees, etc, are going the way of the dinosaur.
Depending on your point of view, this is simply the way game design is going, or it's the dumbing down of the game, or the improving the user-friendliness, or the end of the fucking world. I'm not sure I really like it, but it is the way most games with skill trees are going. Having grown up on D2 and more recently playing Bioware RPGs, I was shocked when I saw this in Borderlands. But then I got used to it - the goal is to make the game fun, and being able to swap skill builds for a few bucks adds to that, even if it removes a certain intangible something.
-
If I could like your post, I would, Victoria.
Miz, it seems like you are angry about the easy availability of respecs, and the removal of prerequisites beyond level, is that correct to say?
Personally, I loved D2. I am loving D3. One of the things I didnt like about D2, though, was the process of building my Meteorb Sorceress, one of the few 'hell-viable' builds you could do with the class (which meant that every sorceress ended up being a Meteorb sorceress eventually, in most cases). Levels 1 to 30, all I was doing was putting single points into prerequisite skills. When I got access to synergy skills at level 18 half way through the game, I put skill points into those synergys, but they weren't really good enough. This meant I had to be carried through the game, for a large part, on the backs of my friends. Once I hit 30 I was fucking awesome, though.
With Diablo 3, I can go into it with a level 60 build in mind, and say "This is what I want to play when I have access to all the things I want", but in the mean time I can try other things, play around, have -fun- with my game. That is worth having it be built on MMO architecture, for me.
I like having fun when I play video games, and Diablo III is fun for me.
-
I've finished the first act (of four) with a Wizard character. It took about 7 hours playing solo and exploring the majority of the environment. I've read some complaints that the game is too short (reports of speed runs of <5 hours), but I don't get that sense. Plenty of content. Rapid completion times are probably possible if you run straight for the next quest objective, but that's not really the point of a hack/slash/loot game.
-
The game has always-on DRM. It probably will accomplish what the publisher wants it to accomplish. It is also a travesty and poisonous to the goodwill that should exist between creators and those who consume their creations.
-/+
The visuals are dated, but enjoyable. (This was the exact same feeling I got when I installed and played Diablo II on launch day: disappointment with the lack of graphical innovation followed by contentment as I came to embrace the style and execution.) The cartoonish element helps to convey the uniqueness of various settings and characters by emphasizing particular colors, shapes, and movements. All I can say is... it's a style. Maybe not everyone's favorite, but it works for what it is. Haven't played enough to tell if the game is "dark enough" for those who expect a lot of :grimdark: from their Diablo. Recommend setting your gamma low if you need more.
The cinematic sequences rock.
+
The audio experience is excellent. The music works well and the sounds effects are varied and impactful, especially with a good set of headphones. Class-specific banter between your champion, his/her followers, and the enemies adds some extra fun. I can't speak for the voice acting on all characters, but I have no complaints about the male wizard. Little snippets of lore are delivered through journals found in the environment and when killing a new type of enemy for the first time (an optional bestiary-like reference is delivered by a variety of voiced characters).
-
Death in "softcore" mode has virtually no consequence (10% hit to equipment durability that is easily repaired in town) and tight situations don't evoke a lot of tension. Hardcore will definitely be the way to play in the long run. As I understand it, the auction house for hardcore characters is to be separate from the rest. This should lessen the spoiling element to some extent for those taking the HC route.
(In case you don't know, hardcore mode is the same game but you only get one life. So... plenty of consequence.)
+
Administrative tasks like town portals and identifying items are now entirely that. Click a button at any time for a town portal (short casting animation). Right-click any rare item at any time for identification (short casting animation). This is convenient. I can appreciate those who want to haul scrolls around or find a costly spellbook to learn town portal or who want to bring their unknown treasures to a sage for identification, but I don't miss the added inventory space, clicks, and time needed for those tasks.
-
Player choice feels reduced. This is always a bad thing. You do not allocate attribute points, skill points, or really any points of any kind to your own champion. New abilities and modifications to them (runes) unlock at given benchmarks as you gain levels. The only choice left to you is how to arrange them among your six action buttons (left & right mouse, and keyboard numbers 1-4; the number buttons unlock progressively, so your choices are limited to start with). Oddly, followers receive two skills every five levels from which you can select only one, but these can be re-speced at will.
Each class has enough abilities and variations on them to make these transient selections at least somewhat meaningful. As there is no proper pause function and newly-allocated abilities must charge for 5-10 seconds before being available, swapping these mid-combat is not easy. Playing up to level 16 with the wizard, I now have several more ability/rune combos than I do slots and I have found that different situations and different combat style preferences call for different choices. I do not at all feel like I'm building a character that is uniquely mine, but I do feel that I have some freedom in how I play him.
This is not the classic hack/slash/look RPG experience from the Diablo series. It is more casual, but there is something to be said for the convenience. If I want to try something different, I don't need to roll a brand new character and grind him up through the levels to see if I'll like a different build. What the streamlining/dumbing-down/convenience boils down to is that I'll end up playing less Diablo 3 because it doesn't take as much time to experience every possible choice.
+
Hacking and slashing is very rewarding. The combat wasn't terribly challenging for me in the first act on normal difficulty (died twice, once being during the act's final boss fight), but it was still entertaining. It's much fun to watch my spells and abilities tearing through bad guys. The pace is just about right and named/unique enemies can pose a challenge if you aren't careful. In a party and on higher difficulty levels, the combat will certainly ramp up. As some people say, the real game starts on the highest difficulty.
+
There is still fun in finding loot, which is good since it's an integral part of a game like this. In addition to selling stuff you choose not to equip, you can salvage it for components. A blacksmith follower (who stays in town) can use said components to craft new (randomly-generated) magical items for you. You spend gold to train him and unlock new items for him to forge.
Overall...
So far, I'm having fun playing Diablo 3. I expect once I finish the campaign and move on to playing higher difficulties with hardcore characters and/or playing MP with the wife and friends, I will continue to have fun.
-
I loved D2, and played it in single-player (with no cheats or mods) for years. I loved the classes (especially the necro), the hack and slash, and the hunt for items. The plot wasn't bad either. What I didn't love was having to save up skill points until level 30 and completely sucking until then, and I also didn't enjoy having to come up with a completely new character every time Blizzard decided to nerf an ability or buff the enemies.
Anyone remember how screwed a lot of Barb builds got with 1.10 (might have been 1.11)? Or Bonemancers? How about Amazons with bow build suddenly firing the equivalent of post-it notes at their enemies? Yeah, D2 definitely was harsh, but not the game part. The harsh part was having your character made too incompetent to live every few patches or so. Sure, in D3, characters become less distinct in build, but most characters in D2 only had one or two good builds anyway - witness the thousands of Meteor-orb sorcs and hammerdins. And I definitely appreciate not losing a character to every other patch, I really do.
Oh, and this online-only thing? Yeah, for that, Blizz can go sit on a pitchfork...and spin. Slowly. Seriously, it's one thing to not be able to log in for a few hours at launch. It's another thing to be offline most of the day. Even CCP, who can't find their rear end with five hands on expansion days, tend to do better than this.
-
Tend to do better than this, yes. Haven't always, though. I distinctly remember some times when Eve was down for 10 hours at a time.
There are other reasons the game is online only, though. The game has a real money auction house now, since people were setting this up anyways. This means they have to do everything possible to stop bots and hackers, and this means that a lot of the game files have to be stored on a server where these people can't get it, and with programs set up to catch people farming through the game 24 hours a day which is usually a good indication of a bot. As I recall, they built up these security programs while dealing with botters in WoW, and most of the behavior is going to be the same.
-
Tend to do better than this, yes. Haven't always, though. I distinctly remember some times when Eve was down for 10 hours at a time.
There are other reasons the game is online only, though. The game has a real money auction house now, since people were setting this up anyways. This means they have to do everything possible to stop bots and hackers, and this means that a lot of the game files have to be stored on a server where these people can't get it, and with programs set up to catch people farming through the game 24 hours a day which is usually a good indication of a bot. As I recall, they built up these security programs while dealing with botters in WoW, and most of the behavior is going to be the same.
Sure, I understand the reasons for being online only. I don't like it, but I understand it. But the problem, as I see it (and I'm just disappointed, not angry) is that if you decide to make something online only, you need to ensure that the infrastructure and code is built to handle it. People who get upset when they aren't getting what they paid for aren't being unreasonable, they're in the right. If I buy a burger and get only the bun, I'm unhappy. If I buy a car and it's missing the transmission, I'm going to be upset. If I buy a game and it doesn't work, my annoyance is not the result of an entitlement complex. It's the fact I spent money on a product promised at a certain date with certain capabilities.
Gamers seem to be fairly tolerant at times, and I know I myself tend to forgive a lot of things from developers that I would never accept from other producers of goods and services. I think that this is one of the reasons that game companies have become comfortable with releasing buggy products, day one dlc, and other "screw the player" gaming "enhancements". Imagine how you would take it if your car dealership operated on the same principles?
"Hello, we have a fine model here for 12,999. Yes, it comes with ONSTAR, in fact, you have to connect to ONSTAR if you want to drive the car - for your safety, of course. No, we can't promise that the service will always be up, please be patient when it isn't, and always be ready to pull over and drive something else if it quits. Also, the motor will shut down and refuse to start again if you hit the brake while turning left with your blinker on. A paint job is extra. In addition, to provide maximum service, we have installed a camera in the car, and reserve the right to decide if and when we will monitor your activities - for customer service reasons only, we promise!"
Yeah. :P
-
Oh, yes, thats a fair point. Opening day launches, though...
Anyways, it looks like things are finally getting stable, and as such the number of posts on the official Blizzard forums saying that Blizzard is worse than Hitler are starting to die down.
-
Latest update from my friends is that they're experiencing lag and rubberbanding. They're not sure if it's Blizzard or the ISP at the moment, though. Apparently easiest to notice on ranged classes like Wizards. Lag and rubberbanding in a singleplayer game. Totally worth not having others cheat... in a singleplayer game.
-
Maybe it would help if you started looking at it as not a single player game? :P
-
When you play singleplayer... it's a singleplayer game.
-
I don't know. I think I've said it before but I have never looked at Diablo as anything other than an online only experience. Not even when it was Diablo 1 and I was on a 56k modem dial-up connection. Even when I play alone.
Really, I am just enjoying that I can bring a friend into whatever game Im running. I've done that a few times and its a lot of fun!
-
Then clearly everyone who's playing singleplayer is somehow doing it wrong? That must be it.
-
It's a multiplayer game with the option not to play with other people. Unless it was marketted as a single player game, then /shrug. See my previous post for why they didn't decide to make two different games so you could play offline.
-
Different strokes for different folks is the best way to summarize this entire thread.
I've heard mixed reviews of Diablo III from the players, some love it and some despise it. The online-only is a sticking point, as is the AH and the way they've organized the skills. In the end, you either like the product Blizzard released or you don't. I personally don't and I'm thoroughly enjoying my return to EVE.
My somewhat selfish desire is that there's a string of really terrible game releases that brings people back to EVE.
I know, it's mean.
-
Well, yeah, a bit Miz. You know how EVE has those people who do nothing but spam level 4 missions in high sec and then end up raging because "There is nothing to do and they are bored"? Playing single player Diablo is sort of like that, in my opinion.
-
My somewhat selfish desire is that there's a string of really terrible game releases that brings people back to EVE.
I know, it's mean.
But very, very, cunning.
Of course, my more likely distractions are going to be RO2 (the Aussie server seems to be filling up again in anticipation of the big patch, and Rising Storm (Pacific war mod) is in Beta testing), the DUST 514 Beta (if they ever send me a key, and probably mostly to stare at the background) and Portal 2 if Matariki ever gets around to playing Portal.
Please don't sabotage all those games... Please.
-
Portal 2's already been released, so the only sabotage I can foresee there is entirely caused by user error >.>
-
I thought they were releasing new content for it? My Steam thingy is advertising something about Portal 2.
-
I believe the perpetual testing initiative was released last week, allowing users to make their own maps.
-
I believe the perpetual testing initiative was released last week, allowing users to make their own maps.
This. Which still means any "sabotage" will probably be player-generated, as it will not affect the current single-player or two-player campaigns. :P
-
I'm only putting up with this "game" because I promised a few of my RL friends I'd join in when it was released (like 9 months ago).
Now the day of ruin has come and I must fulfill my vows....
Generally hate blizzard and everything they've touched since Broodwar.
This aims to be no different.
But different strokes for different folks, some people love this kind of gameplay and others don't.
I think the wow and diablo style 'quest' and pavlovian loot system are among the worst things to happen to gaming.
Always-On DRM is actually the spawn of satan, straight from the depths of hell. You want me to pay $63 for a single player game I can't play if I unplug my modem? That's mean.
Anyway off to scour the depths.
-
I liked Warcraft 3. It was an RTS that decided to go against the usual UI setup of the popular and massively cloned C&C model.
Same style of model and hero leadership that the DoW games took on so \o/
-
I liked Warcraft 3. It was an RTS that decided to go against the usual UI setup of the popular and massively cloned C&C model.
Same style of model and hero leadership that the DoW games took on so \o/
You are correct, WC3 did have a lot of good things about it. I revise my statement to include anything after wc3 :P
"zug zug!"
-
Hmm. Well, if Blizz wants to make some (more) money off of me, they can offer me offline mode for an additional fee. I'm perfectly fine with never getting to use my offline stuff online. And since it would be DLC, piracy is less of a problem, most likely.
-
I liked Warcraft 3. It was an RTS that decided to go against the usual UI setup of the popular and massively cloned C&C model.
Same style of model and hero leadership that the DoW games took on so \o/
You are correct, WC3 did have a lot of good things about it. I revise my statement to include anything after wc3 :P
"zug zug!"
Meh. I love SC 2.
-
Well, yeah, a bit Miz. You know how EVE has those people who do nothing but spam level 4 missions in high sec and then end up raging because "There is nothing to do and they are bored"? Playing single player Diablo is sort of like that, in my opinion.
EVE Online is marketed as a Massively MULTIPLAYER ONLINE ROLE-PLAYING Game. Multiplayer. Online. Role-playing. These things combined promote playing with other people online.
The Diablo series are a series of hack-slash role-playing games. There are no part of this that demand you play it online, or with anyone but yourself. This makes for a very large difference in the two games, so your 'herps, missioners play solo in an MMO, derpa' example is rather flawed.
Mizara's issue is what my issue and many other's issue is; he, me and others would like the ability to turn the game on, internet or no internet, and play the game's singleplayer without crashing from an online server or having issues when/if said server fucks up.
Alone.
For fun, with ourselves, offline. (Thus, minute to random internet crashes etc.)
You want to play it online, with others? By all means, go ahead. But don't give me any bull about the game being designed as a multiplayer game where the one's who play the singleplayer are doing it wrong. The mission-runner in EVE who does nothing but run missions and grow bored with it have countless other options to pursue for their entertainment in a massively multiplayer universe filled with tens of thousands of other players. He can do other things than mission, so long as he's logged into a dedicated online game.
The guy who wants to play Diablo in singleplayer and grows tired of it when it's finished/interest drops has multiplayer, and that he has to go online for the multiplayer makes total sense, unless we talk LAN-parties. To force the single-PC singleplayer person with no internet to get internet access and be at the mercy of the server's whims is not cool.
Meeh, this could have been so much shorter. Gonna go to bed now, before I rant on. o/
-
Oh, wonderful. Can't log in for the second day in a row.
You know, it's pretty sad when your paying customers have to hope that someone cracks the game so that they can play what they paid for.
-
Oh, wonderful. Can't log in for the second day in a row.
You know, it's pretty sad when your paying customers have to hope that someone cracks the game so that they can play what they paid for.
Funny fact; The following line, though laced with sarcasm, pretty much sums up my entire previous post, minus the complain against Tib:
Would it not be great if the singleplayer campaign was available offline, so that you could at least play it while you wait?
-
Oh, wonderful. Can't log in for the second day in a row.
You know, it's pretty sad when your paying customers have to hope that someone cracks the game so that they can play what they paid for.
!@#$. Yes.
Funny fact; The following line, though laced with sarcasm, pretty much sums up my entire previous post, minus the complain against Tib:
Would it not be great if the singleplayer campaign was available offline, so that you could at least play it while you wait?
-
Portal 2's already been released, so the only sabotage I can foresee there is entirely caused by user error >.>
Of course, my more likely distractions are going to be [...] Portal 2 if Matariki ever gets around to playing Portal.
-
Oh, wonderful. Can't log in for the second day in a row.
You know, it's pretty sad when your paying customers have to hope that someone cracks the game so that they can play what they paid for.
Welcome to the wonderful future of gaming.
-
It's worse than you might realize, Wan.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/05/17/opinion-why-the-problem-with-diablo-isnt-diablo/
Love this article. Pretty perfectly sums up my own feelings and fears. While not exactly being known as innovators, Blizzard is a trailblazing studio in a different kind of way (through sheer force / juggernaut power). Mass acceptance of the Blizzard model means every other studio will feel more comfortable copying it (just like every other MMO studio these days copies Blizzards MMO model).
I fear the future is pretty bleak.
Also, in Australia, where the internet is essentially an intricate network of tin cans and twine, and some of us still deal with things like *gasp* limited bandwidth and monthly data caps, the concept of always-online is particularly troubling. That's before you factor in the inherent lag that comes from connecting to US/EU servers (typically, dedicated Australian servers aren't provided, even for AAA titles like D3). Granted, we should get our shit together and build a proper broadband network, but still...
-
Also, in Australia, where the internet is essentially an intricate network of tin cans and twine, and some of us still deal with things like *gasp* limited bandwidth and monthly data caps, the concept of always-online is particularly troubling. That's before you factor in the inherent lag that comes from connecting to US/EU servers (typically, dedicated Australian servers aren't provided, even for AAA titles like D3). Granted, we should get our shit together and build a proper broadband network, but still...
This Kiwi agrees.
-
So does Cracked, apparently. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-diablo-iii-represents-gamings-annoying-future/)
I have to say I agree with this being a scary development in general. It is now accepted to fuck your paying customers up the ass and there will be hordes standing ready to defend the developer's right to do so.
-
Well, yeah, a bit Miz. You know how EVE has those people who do nothing but spam level 4 missions in high sec and then end up raging because "There is nothing to do and they are bored"? Playing single player Diablo is sort of like that, in my opinion.
EVE Online is marketed as a Massively MULTIPLAYER ONLINE ROLE-PLAYING Game. Multiplayer. Online. Role-playing. These things combined promote playing with other people online.
The Diablo series are a series of hack-slash role-playing games. There are no part of this that demand you play it online, or with anyone but yourself. This makes for a very large difference in the two games, so your 'herps, missioners play solo in an MMO, derpa' example is rather flawed.
Mizara's issue is what my issue and many other's issue is; he, me and others would like the ability to turn the game on, internet or no internet, and play the game's singleplayer without crashing from an online server or having issues when/if said server fucks up.
Alone.
For fun, with ourselves, offline. (Thus, minute to random internet crashes etc.)
You want to play it online, with others? By all means, go ahead. But don't give me any bull about the game being designed as a multiplayer game where the one's who play the singleplayer are doing it wrong. The mission-runner in EVE who does nothing but run missions and grow bored with it have countless other options to pursue for their entertainment in a massively multiplayer universe filled with tens of thousands of other players. He can do other things than mission, so long as he's logged into a dedicated online game.
The guy who wants to play Diablo in singleplayer and grows tired of it when it's finished/interest drops has multiplayer, and that he has to go online for the multiplayer makes total sense, unless we talk LAN-parties. To force the single-PC singleplayer person with no internet to get internet access and be at the mercy of the server's whims is not cool.
Meeh, this could have been so much shorter. Gonna go to bed now, before I rant on. o/
I think this is where the issue is, and I think Blizzard should have done more to let people know ahead of time. Diablo 1 and 2 were essentially single player games with very strong multiplayer. It has, however, been 12 YEARS since D2. That is an eternity in game design. I think it’s entirely reasonable that D3 is a significant evolution from D2, just as SC2 was from SC. I think the problem was Blizzards failure to let everyone know how different the design would be ahead of time. People went in expecting D2 with a 12-year graphics update, what they got was D3.
And from everything I’ve seen, Blizzard didn’t design this as a single player game. They designed it as a multiplayer game that you can play alone if you really really want. They didn’t really want to tell anyone that because that bit of info might have cost them sales (like mine, I’m going to wait a bit before I consider buying this).
So the issue then (like so many) is one of communication. What Blizzard made and what people were expecting were not the same, and there are a lot of people unhappy about this. The blame either lies with blizzard (if they didn’t do a good enough job letting people know what to expect beforehand) or with the people (if Blizzard did put the info out there and people just didn’t read because they were expecting Diablo 2 with better graphics).
-
So does Cracked, apparently. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-diablo-iii-represents-gamings-annoying-future/)
I have to say I agree with this being a scary development in general. It is now accepted to fuck your paying customers up the ass and there will be hordes standing ready to defend the developer's right to do so.
As much as I face-Desk about the issues listed in this article, the way it's told is hilarious. I'm in the weird position to be laughing out loud and despairing at the utter foolishness of the developers in Blizz at the same time. Talk about conflicting emotions and mixed signals...
I am so glad I did not get Diablo III, and that I've not had much interest in playing SCII the last few days. It's likely that I would not be able to log in... because Diablo III melted the battle.net log-in server.
/face-desk.
*thud*
*thud*
*thud*
*thud*
-
That may be so Victoria. The problem I have with this persists, however; you have to be online, on their server, to play solo. And even then, you also have to turn off the option for random friends on Battle.net to be able to join your single-player game if you don't want them to.
I can see the benefits of this; if you want to play co-op, this is now very easy... *IF* you get the option to allow/deny anyone that wants to join your game, instead of randomly being swarmed by other players in your single-player game.
On the other hand, your play is still Dependant on the server's stability or traffic, you can still lag in your single-player game, because the game was designed to be online all the time.
Would it really have killed them to make the option for going offline and playing the single-player entirely single, and install a hard barrier between offline toons and online toons? This way, if you want to import your single-player toon to a multi-player match, or utilize the auction-house, buying items for RL money, you have to play that toon online.
And while you play your single-player game, not only are you at the mercy of the server's stability and traffic, you are contributing to it's traffic even when playing alone. There could be several hundred thousand players online, and the ones among them who play together gets an equal share of the immense lag (if any) because thousands more play solo and add to the traffic, even if this should and could be wholly possible to do offline where the only limitation to your enjoyment is your own hardware, and you are not adding to the traffic for the one's playing multi-player.
It seems like a really poor choice to me, and adds to the huge problem of server traffic. No wonder their day-one and day-two work-days was putting out the electrical fires in burning server computers, as both the single and multi parts of the player-base combined to fry their hardware. All for the sake, of selling pixels and stat-boosters for RL money.
I used to be naive enough to think that gaming becoming mainstream was a good thing.
-
Repeat after me:
Single player gaming should NEVER need an Internet connection.
Maxis should take note.
-
Repeat after me:
Single player gaming should NEVER need an Internet connection.
Single player gaming should NEVER need an Internet connection.
o7
-
Would it really have killed them to make the option for going offline and playing the single-player entirely single, and install a hard barrier between offline toons and online toons? This way, if you want to import your single-player toon to a multi-player match, or utilize the auction-house, buying items for RL money, you have to play that toon online...It seems like a really poor choice to me...All for the sake, of selling pixels and stat-boosters for RL money.
You know, it very well might have (killed them). This is just a thought, and I don't claim to have any kind of special insight or anything here, just a feeling.
But consider everything you're saying. It really was a poor choice, one that burned them badly in the gaming media and many gamer's minds. They're many things, Blizzard, but they're not outright stupid. They knew this was going to be the reaction going in. Does it then strike anyone else as strange that they were and are so utterly committed to it? Sure, for Activision/Blizzard the money is everything, but you do have to wonder if they saw long-term financials and concluded that the RMAH (real money auction house) wasn't optional.
Consider also that WoW subscriptions are falling off and their (lol) panda-based expansion isn't likely to stop that slow bleed. Consider as well, that Diablo III's release tried to help in that regard (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/10/21/diablo-iii-free-to-wow-pass-subscribers/).
There are things about Blizzard's behavior that remind me of Bank of America (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/bank-of-america-in-trouble-20120302), specifically: "It’s a very bad sign that a bank is in a desperate cash crunch when it tries repeatedly to gouge its customers."
Just a thought. I know they aren't a bank, but the echoes of "cannibalizing your baseline customer to stay afloat" resonated with me.
-
Oh, wonderful. Can't log in for the second day in a row.
You know, it's pretty sad when your paying customers have to hope that someone cracks the game so that they can play what they paid for.
Welcome to the wonderful future of gaming.
They can have it. I'll leave online gaming completely first (including Uru, perhaps also There.com again); There's still this pet project I want to do for Nagios/Icinga that could easily take the next 3-4+ years of my life (plus earn good street cred in FOSS and Monitoring circles) so if they want to give me an excuse that's fine with me. :twisted:
I've been very careful about not buying things that have requirements like that either, or (in the case of Bioshock 2 as an example) have additional DRM/login outside of Steam (because I find the idea of a game requiring login to two different systems really dumb). The only reason I have Bioshock 1 is that they removed SecuROM in the Steam release. :ugh: This is getting progressively harder over the years, and is another reason I've begun to consider aiming my skills toward helping others again.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/izumizagari/monk.jpg)
Wasn't going to get it at first till I saw the monk punch things. Totally punched Belial in the face till he died, it was glorious.