EPTReaper of Souls General Discussion - Page 23
| Forum Index > Diablo 3 |
|
schmeebs
United States115 Posts
| ||
|
MVega
763 Posts
D3 was Blizzard's huge misstep in that it had serious issues at launch, almost all of which had been fixed. The auction house was a terrible idea and it ruined the longevity of the game, but you can't cork that bottle now. I have no reason to sit here and talk shit about Blizzard and their announcements though until I actually see the damn thing. Whining about a company that's given almost everyone in this community countless hours of entertainment is fucked up. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On August 15 2013 23:46 schmeebs wrote: Pretty sure Dark Below was already confirmed as a hoax. Really? Queen Azshara seems like the logical next bad guy | ||
|
BreAKerTV
Taiwan1658 Posts
Why would they publish or republish a video like that on August 2nd? | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On August 15 2013 23:52 MVega wrote: This thread is really depressing. From a business standpoint D3 and SC2 were extremely successful, and from where I'm sitting ... I bought D3, got hundreds of hours out of it, had fun with it, and for me that's a success. Same with SC2. I've seen a few posts in this thread referring to SC2 as a failure, and that depresses me because literally the only people who feel that way are BW fans with rose tinted goggles who don't remember the huge clusterfuck that BW balance for most of it's life. D3 was Blizzard's huge misstep in that it had serious issues at launch, almost all of which had been fixed. The auction house was a terrible idea and it ruined the longevity of the game, but you can't cork that bottle now. I have no reason to sit here and talk shit about Blizzard and their announcements though until I actually see the damn thing. Whining about a company that's given almost everyone in this community countless hours of entertainment is fucked up. I love how people always bring the BW fanatics into this. It's as if a lot of you have tunnel vision or some shit. As for the patching in BW. There were only a few major and I mean major patches that changed a lot of the complexity and by a certain point the game was what it is. The evolution came more so from the players and maps more than anything else when it was all said and done. There are a lot of things Blizzard could have done better when it came to both franchises. On paper, yes SC2 and D3 are highly successful, but there are a lot of people out there (not just BW fans) that think they could have done better all across the board. I think you mean countless mind-numbing hours and you know what? I think that's a good thing that people are outspoken against it because that means they're still passionate about gaming and the direction of the company. People care man! | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On August 15 2013 23:52 MVega wrote: This thread is really depressing. From a business standpoint D3 and SC2 were extremely successful, and from where I'm sitting ... I bought D3, got hundreds of hours out of it, had fun with it, and for me that's a success. Same with SC2. I've seen a few posts in this thread referring to SC2 as a failure, and that depresses me because literally the only people who feel that way are BW fans with rose tinted goggles who don't remember the huge clusterfuck that BW balance for most of it's life. D3 was Blizzard's huge misstep in that it had serious issues at launch, almost all of which had been fixed. The auction house was a terrible idea and it ruined the longevity of the game, but you can't cork that bottle now. I have no reason to sit here and talk shit about Blizzard and their announcements though until I actually see the damn thing. Whining about a company that's given almost everyone in this community countless hours of entertainment is fucked up. That's sort of true, everything is relative. To me Diablo 3 was more or less a good game, and I enjoyed using the auction house. Its just not a great game. It'll be depressing when we're forced to buy entertaining games rather than games we're truly passionate about because there's nothing else to play. I can tell you I didn't get hundreds of hours of entertainment out of D3; I played one character and was satisfied. Same with SC2...I played the campaign, I enjoyed it, but competitive SC2 just seems like its way too luck-based (you see proxies and all-ins all the time that aren't scouted) so I don't even want to bother trying to work my way up through the lower leagues where if anything I'll be less aware due to my slower APM and reduced awareness of what all the timings are. I would say the same with BW, although I played that when I was 10 or so. When I look back at my experience, overall I feel like those games were primarily designed for casual gamers (in terms of the single player experience). And I'm not particularly thrilled about purchasing another casual game expansion especially if the story is weak like with Diablo 3. I am one of the few who loved Hots' story though so I'll probably buy that. I think I'll just wait for the true RPGs coming out from inXile, and Star Citizen fro Chris Roberts. As well as Underrail  . | ||
|
TRAP[yoo]
Hungary6026 Posts
On August 15 2013 23:52 MVega wrote: This thread is really depressing. From a business standpoint D3 and SC2 were extremely successful, and from where I'm sitting ... I bought D3, got hundreds of hours out of it, had fun with it, and for me that's a success. Same with SC2. I've seen a few posts in this thread referring to SC2 as a failure, and that depresses me because literally the only people who feel that way are BW fans with rose tinted goggles who don't remember the huge clusterfuck that BW balance for most of it's life. D3 was Blizzard's huge misstep in that it had serious issues at launch, almost all of which had been fixed. The auction house was a terrible idea and it ruined the longevity of the game, but you can't cork that bottle now. I have no reason to sit here and talk shit about Blizzard and their announcements though until I actually see the damn thing. Whining about a company that's given almost everyone in this community countless hours of entertainment is fucked up. of course they are sucessfull but what does that reall say about the game? im gonna stick to the diablo franchise and dont bring up starcraft  first of all its a sequel to one of the BEST and STILL played series of all time (diablo+diablo 2 lod). after their announcement alo of hype was created because it was one of the games many people were waiting for. having faith in blizzard and their games i preordered it very very early like most of my friends. its no shocker that other fans of the franchise would do the same thing so the copies sold sure has some truth to how good the game is but on the other hand think of the fans that bought it without having read tests about it... having said that i cant really complain about the first week playing d3. i would even go so far and say that the way the first playthrough is layed out is superior to d2. its easier, faster and you have alot of fun ( at least i had it when i completed normal, nightmare and hell)...BUT after not playing for a week because my pc broke i realized that starting in hell difficulty i was starting to get bored. discussing the problems within the game is not really worth it thou...just look at the parts that made d2 lod one of the genre defining games and be honest to yourself! but there is one thing im really curious about. act 2 in Diablo 2 was the worst thing ever...how is it possible to make the same mistake again?!?!?! edit: what the post above mine says. too many games today are a casual snoozefest -_- i guess people making games realized that they can make a shitton of money if even my grandma is able to play it | ||
|
RaspberrySC2
United States168 Posts
My enjoyment is/was mixed. I loved being able to choose to play as a female protagonist in an epic story. On the other hand, I think they tried to go "too epic" with the story. I didn't like how the gameplay with my 2nd level barbarian had my hits causing shockwaves and sending enemies flying off the screen. I didn't like it because I felt way too powerful and it ruined any tone of horror or suspense. I didn't like how confident the protagonist was throughout the entire game. I mean, maintaining a sense of hope and optimism is one thing, but being like "all hell breaking loose? Pft, whatever. I'm more intimidated by the idea of organizing my sock drawer" is quite another. Act 2 and the Belial Arc had SO much more potential than they took advantage of and was disappointing. The story of Act 3 may have sucked, but the backgrounds and mood in the hell levels I think they actually did rather well. I say that because this was the first point in the game that I felt like I was playing a Diablo game and could really let myself get into the experience. Then, it was kind of ruined by Act 4 ("too epic"). My final fight on the first playthrough? Hit "4" once to call in the ancients, hold down left-click until dead. GG. So, why did I do a mini-review like that? It's because I still like the game. Yesterday, I started a wizard because I wanted to try a different play style. At first I was kind of underwhelmed at how boring she felt, but then I learned about how to set the monster power level in the options menu. I bumped it up to level 1 and the game felt really different. I couldn't just mow everything down holding right-click and aiming a beam of frost. I had to move and dodge because being hit actually meant that my character was getting hurt and there was a real threat of dying(!) I wouldn't say that I am exhilarated, but I do have to sit up a little straighter and pay more attention when I play now. I want to play through with all the characters and use all the followers so I can experience the story with each of the combinations I can come up with and see how the characters interact with each other. I also want to see if I can at least get *to* Inferno difficulty with each of my characters and I'm excited by the challenge of playing with HC characters for the first time I've ever tried it. I want to explore the maps and the world that was created by the people listed in the credits of the game (which took 10-15 minutes to roll through). There's actually a lot of content and I'm one of the people who clears an entire map as best as I can before moving on to the next so my first playthrough with my barbarian took me about 20 hours. I'm not someone who enjoys grinding for gear. I haven't even looked at the auction house (because what's the point in buying power other than to ruin the fun of challenge) nor have I even tried a public game. I actually was perturbed to find that the game automatically had me join a general chat channel while I was playing my solo game in the wee hours of the night with the lights out, trying to recreate the experience I had with the first Diablo when I was 12 and suddenly all this phantom internet chatter pops up in the lower left hand corner of my screen. I actually stopped everything I was doing in the game just so I could find out how to turn it off so I could get back to playing the single player experience I was looking for. I just want to explore and beat as much of the game as possible. Each playthrough with each class through normal (mp1 or more) should also take about 20 hours to complete for me. At least 80 more hours that I am looking forward to despite my gripes about the story, setting, mood, and tone? I think Diablo 3 qualifies as a good gift. I'm hoping for an expansion announcement because that means more content to explore and a potential for the art team to change direction to get the feel of the game more "right". | ||
|
S1eth
Austria221 Posts
On August 15 2013 23:52 MVega wrote: This thread is really depressing. From a business standpoint D3 and SC2 were extremely successful, and from where I'm sitting ... I bought D3, got hundreds of hours out of it, had fun with it, and for me that's a success. Same with SC2. I've seen a few posts in this thread referring to SC2 as a failure, and that depresses me because literally the only people who feel that way are BW fans with rose tinted goggles who don't remember the huge clusterfuck that BW balance for most of it's life. D3 was Blizzard's huge misstep in that it had serious issues at launch, almost all of which had been fixed. The auction house was a terrible idea and it ruined the longevity of the game, but you can't cork that bottle now. I have no reason to sit here and talk shit about Blizzard and their announcements though until I actually see the damn thing. Whining about a company that's given almost everyone in this community countless hours of entertainment is fucked up. Of course you can fix D3's auction house problem, ruined economy and complete lack of longevity. It's called "ladder". | ||
|
zdfgucker
China594 Posts
On August 15 2013 18:53 NarutO wrote: In my believe if you spend 50$ on a game and play for hundrets of hours or even just 100, it was worth it. I found Diablo 3 to have many flaws, but I still enjoyed playing through it and grinding for gear. I really don't understand how anyone would say it wasnt worth purchasing if he/she spent several hours. If you didn't like it, you would have quit it in the first place after the first playthrough. There are people like me who were hardcore D2 fans and chose not to purchase D3. I agree, after butchering the Starcraft and Diablo universe at least leave the Warcraft franchise halfway intact. Whatever WoW did to the lore (never played it) can't be as bad as what WC4 would be like. Thanks to the recent failures of Blizzard I am no longer a loyal Blizzard customer. The RTS genre is dead to me and PoE is what D3 should have been. | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On August 16 2013 01:16 S1eth wrote: Of course you can fix D3's auction house problem, ruined economy and complete lack of longevity. It's called "ladder". Or "expansion" Blizzard is king of expansions. People keep comparing D3 to the expansions of games. Comparing to BW instead of SC, comparing to LoD instead of D2, comparing to TFT instead of RoC. They pretty much always hugely improve things in their expansions. The story may not be better, but the gameplay will be. | ||
|
blinken
Canada368 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 16 2013 02:14 TheRabidDeer wrote: Or "expansion" Blizzard is king of expansions. People keep comparing D3 to the expansions of games. Comparing to BW instead of SC, comparing to LoD instead of D2, comparing to TFT instead of RoC. They pretty much always hugely improve things in their expansions. The story may not be better, but the gameplay will be. SC and D2 were much worse than their expansions, but they were completely revolutionary by their current standards. D2 was amazing because it played better than any other hack/slash dungeon crawler around, and the design set the standard for the genre up to this day. SC1 was exactly the same. LoD and BW just took completely innovative games and improved on them by a huge margin. Diablo 3, more or less, went back to standards D2 had created, and ignored everything that made the expansion (and subsequent patches) so much better. | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On August 16 2013 02:50 WolfintheSheep wrote: SC and D2 were much worse than their expansions, but they were completely revolutionary by their current standards. D2 was amazing because it played better than any other hack/slash dungeon crawler around, and the design set the standard for the genre up to this day. SC1 was exactly the same. LoD and BW just took completely innovative games and improved on them by a huge margin. Diablo 3, more or less, went back to standards D2 had created, and ignored everything that made the expansion (and subsequent patches) so much better. I disagree. To me, the only things left to really change in D3 are: 1) Possibly add ladder/remove AH 2) Improve itemization Itemization is being "fixed" (supposedly) in a patch that will be hitting soon. The other issue will be fixed in the expansion, and we will get more content, heroes, and who knows what else. I dont see anything that it ignored that the expansion had made better for D2. I think the skill system is quite neat, and I enjoy most everything about D3. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On August 15 2013 23:52 MVega wrote: This thread is really depressing. From a business standpoint D3 and SC2 were extremely successful, and from where I'm sitting ... I bought D3, got hundreds of hours out of it, had fun with it, and for me that's a success. Same with SC2. I've seen a few posts in this thread referring to SC2 as a failure, and that depresses me because literally the only people who feel that way are BW fans with rose tinted goggles who don't remember the huge clusterfuck that BW balance for most of it's life. most of its life? get a clue plz There were exactly two balance patches after BW; 1.05 and 1.08. The latter of which was released in May 2001. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On August 16 2013 02:56 Mindcrime wrote: most of its life? get a clue plz There were exactly two balance patches after BW; 1.05 and 1.08. The latter of which was released in May 2001. I think his point was despite the "balance" patches BW was highly imbalanced for most of its existence and was only made playable by extremely talented map designers figuring out how to fix the balance issues and make the game fun while doing it. | ||
|
Jisall
United States2054 Posts
In diablo 2 you had to plan out carefully your skill builds, in D3 there is no mechanic like that. You build one of each class, instead of one of each class build, then they added paragon levels which only encourages people to build 1 of each class. Totally went the wrong way. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On August 16 2013 03:00 Adreme wrote: I think his point was despite the "balance" patches BW was highly imbalanced for most of its existence and was only made playable by extremely talented map designers figuring out how to fix the balance issues and make the game fun while doing it. Well, shit, I didn't know bw was unplayable when I was playing it over a decade ago. | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On August 16 2013 03:08 Jisall wrote: The problem with diablo was that they dumbed down the skill builds. In diablo 2 you had to plan out carefully your skill builds, in D3 there is no mechanic like that. You build one of each class, instead of one of each class build, then they added paragon levels which only encourages people to build 1 of each class. Totally went the wrong way. They didnt dumb it down, they removed boring tedium. Instead of going to a skill calculator online and putting in your plan there you just pick your abilities. Same end result without the fiddling of putting 1 point into skills you wont ever use. Instead of using a hacked 99 singleplayer character template to test a build, you just pick your skills and try it out. Instead of getting enough strength to carry gear, dex to block, then rest into vit, it just does it automatically. It isnt dumbed down, it is less tedious. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
people can say the new way is better or not, the fact remains it isnt what it used to be and its for the worst imo. its perfectly understandable that people who played the past games are disappointed, you cant dismiss their opinion just because you enjoyed it and they didnt. its the worst fucking mindset to have; like DB once said, "dont like sc2? go play bw" | ||
| ||
