EPTReaper of Souls General Discussion - Page 10
| Forum Index > Diablo 3 |
|
Mannerheim
766 Posts
| ||
|
aka_star
United Kingdom1546 Posts
On August 02 2013 18:55 [F_]aths wrote: You get to a website which has a strong Blizzard game community and show how little you give. Great. I admire how 'cool' you are and what you 'contribute' to the community you joined. I admire your elitism its perfect for this community | ||
|
nanospartan
649 Posts
On August 02 2013 21:04 Mannerheim wrote: It's perfectly reasonable to consider D3 a failed Blizzard game. I hold their games to a higher standard than the rest of the industry (as I do with Valve), so I'm not comparing D3 to other ARPGs, but to other Blizzard games. It's their first one in over a decade to not have the replayability aspects that has been the trademark of the company. Once they lose that for good, Blizzard will be just another game development company, and not an automatic buy as it has been for me in the past. Starcraft 2 could arguably fall into the same category as Diablo 3 Q_Q | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
On August 02 2013 21:22 nanospartan wrote: Starcraft 2 could arguably fall into the same category as Diablo 3 Q_Q It does, but not in the same amount. | ||
|
Roggay
Switzerland6320 Posts
On August 02 2013 21:22 nanospartan wrote: Starcraft 2 could arguably fall into the same category as Diablo 3 Q_Q No? The main focus of sc2 is the multiplayer, and it hasnt disappointed (yes the single player wasn't perfect at all, but the replayability doesnt come from there). | ||
|
nanospartan
649 Posts
On August 02 2013 21:25 Roggay wrote: No? The main focus of sc2 is the multiplayer, and it hasnt disappointed (yes the single player wasn't perfect at all, but the replayability doesnt come from there). I was thinking more in terms of battle.net, in comparison to older blizzard games like Warcraft 3 | ||
Chosi
Germany1306 Posts
| ||
|
Roggay
Switzerland6320 Posts
On August 02 2013 21:30 nanospartan wrote: I was thinking more in terms of battle.net, in comparison to older blizzard games like Warcraft 3 Oh, I can see that then. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On August 02 2013 19:07 Emnjay808 wrote: First off. The old Blizzard is not the same as the new Blizzard. And this website birthed on BroodWar. Secondly. Am Im not allowed to express my unenthusiasm because what... I havent bought ANY (in fact, I bought ALL) of their games. Excluding HOTS, for obvious reasons. Which I wont be purchasing a new D3 (whatever the fuck they come up with next). For obvious fucking reasons too. Am I still in the wrong for expressing myself. Edit: Should just move this thread into the D3 section. I hate to have to see this bumped in the General every other minute. If you have unenthusiasm, why do you feel the need to voice it? To help creating at atmosphere were some think it's cool to be sarcastic? Or someone who uses "fuck" and "fucking", just to show how 'mature' you are? On August 02 2013 19:10 Mataza wrote: This is your assumption. Heard your argument countless times. Your kind is called Blizzard fanboy, the white knights that defend blizzard from those people that were disappointed. Blizzard is a big boy, it doesn't need your help for that. I am disappointed by their recent releases. There are valid reasons, like the fact that WC3 battlenet was objectively better than that of SC2. It had everything sc2's battlenet had except for facebook integration. On top of that it had a better custom map integration, chat channels from the start, clans from the start(does sc2 even have clan support now?) and automated tournaments. I think a good argument would not rely on calling someone a fanboy. The rest of your posting shows that you don't know much about the currents version of SC2. That is probably why to try to attack ad hominem ("fanboy") instead of bringing forth good arguments. | ||
|
Iblis
904 Posts
On August 02 2013 21:25 Roggay wrote: No? The main focus of sc2 is the multiplayer, and it hasnt disappointed (yes the single player wasn't perfect at all, but the replayability doesnt come from there). And most people can argue that SC2 WoL and even HotS lack(or lacked) way too much features as a multiplayer competitve games: no clan support, simplistic replay, custom games ergonomy and presentation was the worst. Warcraft 3 and its battlenet had more features and is 10years old, it had ingame little tournament with multiple modes 1v1, 2v2 etc everyday. And honestly the gameplay and meta wised in WoL was really bland and hots listened to quite a lot of feedback and news casters are nice. As for their annoucement it'll be something way underwhelming like the start of hearthstone beta or something like them saying D3 on console will have (or confirmed it will not )RMAH in the end. | ||
|
JacobShock
Denmark2485 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 02 2013 20:59 ViperPL wrote: Did you ask all SC2 players to come up with that number? And regarding D3, it's probably some new designs for a personal banner and 1 new color. Plus 1 new monster type for act 2! No, the number comes from a very old interview with DK back in 2011 at some point. The question was if Blizzard intented to make the Brutal harder, since people on community complained it was to easy. They laughed in response and said that less than .5%(from my memory, it was less than 1%) beat the game on brutal. It is a joke in my group of friends that all those players are on TL and think they are the majority of SC2 owners. There are valid critizism to bring against Blizzard and to request they improve, I will never say otherwise. That doesn't mean their games are failure or did not have amazing features. There are still not RTS games that matter beyond SC2. I played Dawn of War 2 recently and was reminded how good SC2 is. D3 is still better than any other loot based game I have played, including TorchLight 2(which has really dry combat and a fucked up skill progresssion). The more intresting discussion is "Man, what would I want ot see in a D3 expansion." Or "I kinda want to get my hands on the Heart Stone game and see if its fun". Or "Blizzard Allstars could be crazy, I wonder what they could do differently than Dota 2?" All of those are way more intresting that rehashing the same discussion that has been had an unlimited number of times on these forums. | ||
|
peidongyang
Canada2084 Posts
I can only wish... | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On August 02 2013 19:38 Fuchsteufelswild wrote: 1) - "Only $40" is "only" low for you. Many people feel that cheaper games should be cheaper and even if a single play-through of the game only lasts 8-12 hours as you claim (I think many such times might be speed-runs without trying to get any special achievements etc., which makes the claim bullshit, really), people will happily play the game more than once if they enjoyed it enough. 2) 2-3 weeks is not much time to spend on a game you paid $60 for in my opinion. How the heck? Do you throw money away like Sir Scouts does in that .GIF? I remember paying $40 (in AU, so it would be cheaper in USA typically) for FIFA 2000 on the Playstation on special, halved from $80, but I and most people who had any real interest in playing such games got a hell of a lot more than 12 hours out of it, probably far, far over 80 hours. If it's something you enjoy, you shouldn't want to put it down after such a short time. So had that game been full AU price, it still would have been $80 for say 80 hours, so it's fair to expect at least 20 hours from a $40 game, not 8-12. What about the Gran Turismo series? A lot of people who loved driving games loved them and spent a lot of time on them, unlocking everything. The play time of course increases if you're not already good enough to beat the main part of the game in one play-through, because you have to practise a lot to improve. They were successful for a reason and they often cost more because of that, but your minimum ratio of play time: $ paid seems way too low. Maybe said supposed 3D shooter gave you 2/3 of the play time you expect because it was just rubbish, or offered no replay value. Maybe people shouldn't want to pay $40 for something like that. Geez, standards! 1) I think, almost everyone feels anything should be cheaper, but they also feel that their deserve a raise. I bought a lot of games through retail and steam which I did not even play  so I wasted money. I personally like to focus on a few games which I play a lot. I guess that is one of the reasons why I like Blizzard games, they offer (for my taste of course) much more replay value than most other games.I played the WoL campaign 5 times through. Yes, 5 times. And still there are things I want to try out. I played Diablo 3 for several hundred hours. Currently I play only very little D3, but even if I would stop now, I played a lot more of Diablo 3 than I would ever have played Diablo 2 if Diablo 3 would not have been released. Using this as data, I consider D3 a success for me, even though I hoped for a different game. 2) I played Gran Turismo a lot with my Logitech Driving Force Pro. I bought my PS2 for GT4. Even though I bought a dozen of other games later on, I played more GT4 than all other games combined. The value is incredible for me. On the PC, I played a lot of Civilization, Wing Commander, Fallout 1+2, Tropico, Warcraft III and Starcraft II. Diablo 3 kept me for "only" two month, which is still much better than Unreal Tournament 3, Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2010, Half-Life 2, even Skyrim. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On August 02 2013 21:25 Roggay wrote: No? The main focus of sc2 is the multiplayer, and it hasnt disappointed (yes the single player wasn't perfect at all, but the replayability doesnt come from there). I consider the SC2 single player part great. Is there any other RTS campaign with such high production values (preview videos for upgrades) and a meta game (armory / laboratory / mercenary upgrades)? Sure, the storywriting lacks in depth (with the bar fight being the worst, imo) but the actual game is great imo. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 02 2013 22:08 [F_]aths wrote: I consider the SC2 single player part great. Is there any other RTS campaign with such high production values (preview videos for upgrades) and a meta game (armory / laboratory / mercenary upgrades)? Sure, the storywriting lacks in depth, but the actual game is great imo. Most video games stories are bad, including those of previous Blizzard games. We remember them fondly because we were younger when we played them. However, now that I am older and have read well written books like "The book Thief" and "The Name of the Wind", I now see that most of those old Blizzard games had pretty shallow stories. Their rich, colorful worlds are what really carry them. And the majority of people who own SC2 and HotS never play multiplayer, ever. This has always been true for RTS games. They are not like FPS games or fighting games, were everyone can just jump in and have some fun. Most people never touch the multiplayer. | ||
|
Crownlol
United States3726 Posts
On August 02 2013 21:04 Mannerheim wrote: It's perfectly reasonable to consider D3 a failed Blizzard game. No, it absolutely is not. Diablo 3 was a wild success, no matter what you personally think about it. "Diablo III set a new record for fastest-selling PC game by selling over 3.5 million copies in the first 24 hours of its release,[6] and was the best selling PC game of 2012, selling more than 12 million copies during the year" - Bramblet, Matthew (February 7, 2013). "Activision Blizzard Q4 2012 Earnings Report" "Diablo III has received generally positive reviews from critics, attaining scores of 87.64% and 88/100 on aggregate review websites GameRankings and Metacritic respectively" Furthermore, the only people complaining about Diablo are people that purchased it and played it ad nauseum. What's your /played, by the way? | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On August 02 2013 19:49 Fuchsteufelswild wrote: I disagree, especially with the whole "psychology aspect". I agree that that may affect some people, but you can't try to account for the opinions of all people who were disappointed with just one claim that they're all being affected by the same one truth. There are many reasons other than nostalgia for which people still play old games, one major one being that they simply preferred aspects of those games, which could be the character choices in those games, the interfaces, the controls, the graphics, etc. While some games have flashy effects these days, sometimes you just don't like the artistic style, no matter how well it is rendered. A modern game may have more ways of customising the appearance of your character, but you may just outright prefer the options another older game gave, even if there were less options. You may feel that the gameplay was simply better in old games. You may feel that the storyline was simply better in old games. This is why there is such a strong feeling amongst (many but not all, obviously) people that the increasing demand for "pretty games" distracts from focus on enjoyable, rewarding gameplay that makes you want to play it more just because of how enjoyable it is (rather than to grind for so much longer in order to get whatever special new item they released in a new patch). It's also a key reason for why more low budget games with simpler graphics and interesting, engaging or innovative gameplay are becoming more popular and more frequently released. There's no "this man speaks the one great truth on the topic" it's "Hey, this guy has an opinion and thinks it applies to all people who disagree with his perspective. Well huh." Good post. The graphics have always been high on the developers list when it should have been the game play because that's what's going to keep them coming back for more. Having a good story is just the icing on the cake and that my friend is how you start merchandising it. You want to make a lot of money? Make a character everyone knows and loves. | ||
|
ReignSupreme.
Australia4123 Posts
And of course sales-wise Diablo 3 was a huge success, too bad the game/client was broken as soon as it launched, and needed to be patched into oblivion just to make the end-game viable (there were literally mobs that ended up being un-killable before certain types of mob-attributes (not the right word but meh) were changed that they couldn't be spawned together), as well as allowing "paragon" levels to make your character stronger (Mind you I stopped playing prior to Paragon leveling's release). And features that were meant to be in the game were cut without notice. And I don't even want to mention the joke that is the RMAH. By the way, any score under 90 for a title the size and reputation of the Diablo series is generally considered sub-par. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On August 02 2013 22:08 [F_]aths wrote: I consider the SC2 single player part great. Is there any other RTS campaign with such high production values (preview videos for upgrades) and a meta game (armory / laboratory / mercenary upgrades)? Sure, the storywriting lacks in depth (with the bar fight being the worst, imo) but the actual game is great imo. I'm pretty sure DOW campaign is better written and designed than the SC2 one. A pity the online multiplayer is even less functional than Battle.net 2.0. | ||
| ||
