EPTi do care however about finished products, and would not dismiss blizzard because of d3, maybe not even a d3 addon, provided it contains things i am interested in at release... because the biggest disappointment was when blizzard promised to add pvp later on and did not.
Reaper of Souls General Discussion - Page 7
| Forum Index > Diablo 3 |
|
Naphal
Germany2099 Posts
i do care however about finished products, and would not dismiss blizzard because of d3, maybe not even a d3 addon, provided it contains things i am interested in at release... because the biggest disappointment was when blizzard promised to add pvp later on and did not. | ||
|
Drake
Germany6146 Posts
On August 02 2013 06:42 WolfintheSheep wrote: PvP was already added. And it sucked. they said 1 million times they make d3 as custom game, no esport, challanging title, if persons not listen, isnt their fault is it ? | ||
|
gingerfluffmuff
Austria4570 Posts
On August 02 2013 18:06 Crying wrote: Maybe we all got spoiled over the years and we thought we can have a second miracle SC,Diablo.... Thats the problem, we 25+ yr people had awesome video games. Not even one title in 2013 is worth its price imo. (without steam summer sale). I guess its the d3 expo, thank god i stood ground and didnt buy into the whole d3 disaster. | ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
| ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On August 02 2013 18:11 Drake wrote: they said 1 million times they make d3 as custom game, no esport, challanging title, if persons not listen, isnt their fault is it ? The quality of PvP is not linked to whether or not esports is involved. | ||
|
mustache
Switzerland309 Posts
On August 02 2013 18:03 animagne wrote: And how exactly is it different from Diablo 2, where there's nothing else to it than farming hell bosses/ubers? PvP was not much better than it is in d3, as both sucked (and for a good reason, it takes less skill and more overpriced items). Not being able to respec was the biggest flaw in diablo and that just increased the grind (which later was fixed and you could just level up 1 character of each class and respec as much as you want as well, maybe slightly less often), but besides that it was majority of the time just farming for items with your sorc or better yet enigma hammerdin. After you get all your items (which was way more boring than it is in d3, as you get more randomness than just teleporting until you get to a boss with never changing modifiers and worse drop rate than d3 and of course you need all the uniques, some random rares won't do unless it's amulet or rings) you spend couple hours planning out character build order and then go into bot games to get through all acts, then into few tristram/act2/cow run games to get levels for baal bot runs, and from there just mindlessly join bot games for xp. If you remember diablo 2 differently that's good for you, but you shouldn't really judge d3 by how diablo was 10 years ago, instead of what it evolved into. If diablo 2 wasn't inherently flawed, there wouldn't have been so much need for bots to take over battle.net. Every argument I've seen to date for d3 being worse than d2 looks at the latter through pink glasses and I've yet to see a good enough reason. I'm not biased for d3, I've got bored with it like with majority of the games, but I didn't have impossible to fulfill expectations for d3 in the first place. BOLD: This is actually something alot of developers and gamers nowadays seem to miss. Not being able to respec and redo everything is an amazing part of playing a game simply because it makes everything you do that much more meaningful. It makes testing a new class or build out something special and not a 1 minute afair. Trading is the same thing. Diablo 3, unlike WoW, wasn't really a material/crafting based game and hence shouldnt have a auction house. Spending time looking for a good trade in D2 was infinitely more fun, at time tedious, but so much more rewarding than putting something in an auction house and waiting until it sold. TLDR: Easier and more convenient is seldom equal to better when it comes to gaming. sadly most people dont realise the games they had the most fun with are the ones they spent more time on especially because of those time consuming and tedious tasks | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2116 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 02 2013 18:03 animagne wrote: And how exactly is it different from Diablo 2, where there's nothing else to it than farming hell bosses/ubers? PvP was not much better than it is in d3, as both sucked (and for a good reason, it takes less skill and more overpriced items). Not being able to respec was the biggest flaw in diablo and that just increased the grind (which later was fixed and you could just level up 1 character of each class and respec as much as you want as well, maybe slightly less often), but besides that it was majority of the time just farming for items with your sorc or better yet enigma hammerdin. After you get all your items (which was way more boring than it is in d3, as you get more randomness than just teleporting until you get to a boss with never changing modifiers and worse drop rate than d3 and of course you need all the uniques, some random rares won't do unless it's amulet or rings) you spend couple hours planning out character build order and then go into bot games to get through all acts, then into few tristram/act2/cow run games to get levels for baal bot runs, and from there just mindlessly join bot games for xp. Yeah...I told you already, you just ignored it. The D2 playerbase made new characters and did PvP, and farmed to do either of those. You can rant about the hows and whys, but that's what they did, and that's what gave the game longevity. If you remember diablo 2 differently that's good for you, but you shouldn't really judge d3 by how diablo was 10 years ago, instead of what it evolved into. If diablo 2 wasn't inherently flawed, there wouldn't have been so much need for bots to take over battle.net. Every argument I've seen to date for d3 being worse than d2 looks at the latter through pink glasses and I've yet to see a good enough reason. I'm not biased for d3, I've got bored with it like with majority of the games, but I didn't have impossible to fulfill expectations for d3 in the first place. 10 years ago Diablo 2 was seven years old and LoD was three. Diablo 3 is one-and-a-half. You're saying that's a bad timeframe for comparison? Diablo 2 didn't "evolve" into crap. You're talking about the tail-end of over a decade long lifespanning...the bots took over because most players were gone and Blizzard stopped caring. It's like saying SC:BW is a shitty game because you can't find anyone on battle.net. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On August 02 2013 07:01 Dingodile wrote: WC4 but after the massive failure in d3 and sc2, i am very worried that wc4 will be a good game  How is a game which sold millions and got a metacritic score 93 resp. 88 points a "massive failure"? | ||
|
Crying
Bulgaria778 Posts
that way they can release w4 and then make more WoW expansions or even WoW 2 | ||
|
D4V3Z02
Germany693 Posts
| ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On August 02 2013 18:23 PiPoGevy wrote: Warcraft IV already!!!! It mentions "the Heavens, Burning Hells", so it will be something with Diablo. | ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote: How is a game which sold millions and got a metacritic score 93 resp. 88 points a "massive failure"? Come on, don't start that again. He's obviously stating that FOR HIM, they were both massive failure. A lot of people agree and even more disagree at least on the matter of SC2, but that doesn't mean he's trying to make an objective statement about it (sure as hell hope not). On August 02 2013 PiPoGevy and others wrote: [Stuff along the lines of] "Warcraft IV please" Not happening until Legacy of the Void has been out for say 2 years, surely. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote: How is a game which sold millions and got a metacritic score 93 resp. 88 points a "massive failure"? Every professional reviewer only played Normal with a couple characters at most. Not a single one made mention of Inferno, which is where the entirety of D3 is played. And almost every single one of those same review sites ended up doing follow stories on D3's issues. Averaged user reviews usually put the game at 60-70 range. | ||
|
Holy_AT
Austria978 Posts
On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote: How is a game which sold millions and got a metacritic score 93 resp. 88 points a "massive failure"? Because there were no corrections of the score after the release. We were all hyped even the media and the first play through on normal was fun but Diablo 3 offered no long term enjoyment for most part and after 2-3 weeks 90% of players were already gone and 70% would have never bought the game if they knew what they were buying. Diablo 3 did not die in childbirth but shortly after at sudden infant death syndrome. It never matured into its teenager years nor did it become adult nor did it become an old grampa that we love to remember when we think back. It just came into this world and we were happy for a moment and then we cried and suffered in terror when it came to an end. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On August 02 2013 18:42 Holy_AT wrote: Because there were no corrections of the score after the release. We were all hyped even the media and the first play through on normal was fun but Diablo 3 offered no long term enjoyment for most part and after 2-3 weeks 90% of players were already gone and 70% would have never bought the game if they knew what they were buying. Are those numbers actual data or just a guess? Most games offer a playthrough time of 8-12 hours. Keeping a player for 2-3 weeks is already quite good. On August 02 2013 18:34 WolfintheSheep wrote: Every professional reviewer only played Normal with a couple characters at most. Not a single one made mention of Inferno, which is where the entirety of D3 is played. And almost every single one of those same review sites ended up doing follow stories on D3's issues. Averaged user reviews usually put the game at 60-70 range. Normal mode is the mode for most users. Inferno is only for the few hardcore gamers. | ||
|
Noonius
Estonia17413 Posts
| ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
On August 02 2013 18:44 [F_]aths wrote: 1 - Most games offer a playthrough time of 8-12 hours. Keeping a player for 2-3 weeks is already quite good. 2 - Normal mode is the mode for most users. Inferno is only for the few hardcore gamers. 1 - Do many of those games cost as much? 2 - Are your supposed majority of people still playing? If they don't play for many hours, they aren't a REAL majority, or at least not an important one. The vast majority of TIME spent on the game will be by players on Inferno, don't you think? Count by time, not by people. If the game is better, more people will want to spend more time on it. Enough people were disappointed with Normal mode that they couldn't be stuffed redoing the short levels on harder difficulties. | ||
|
BurningSera
Ireland19621 Posts
On August 02 2013 06:53 MysteryMeat1 wrote: I'm sure they will make it so that the wizard is female and the barbarian male, to signify gender roles or something. Oh and if you want to do 2 player you can dismount and give control to another player of your choice without logging out. ahahaha that sounds like a lot fun tbh xD and ye do people still give a damn to blizzard now. | ||
|
ReignSupreme.
Australia4123 Posts
On August 02 2013 18:11 Drake wrote: they said 1 million times they make d3 as custom game, no esport, challanging title, if persons not listen, isnt their fault is it ? I don't think you watched pre-release content where they actually showed off a PvP arena, and mentioned plans to include something similar to WoW's Arena ranking system. And then scratched it from the game without mentioning it. Such as this, which was released at Blizzcon 2010. : and this, where a PvP Matchmaking system is mentioned in the first minutes (2011): And remember this game came out mid-2012, so perhaps you should at least know the facts before telling someone that they don't listen properly. | ||
| ||
