|
On August 02 2013 18:48 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:Show nested quote +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.
1 – No, they cost only about $40. But Diablo for $60 keeps many players for longer than 1.5x the $40 3d-shooter does.
2 – Every one who buys the game is important. If you play for 2-3 weeks you got a lot out of the game for mere $60. If you stay, then you obviously like the game. I guess that more players still play Diablo 3 than a normal PC game ever sold (using the range of 100-300k sold copies as the point where the game gets you some profit.)
|
Yay, a blizz announcement. Im so hype.
/sarcasm
|
On August 02 2013 18:54 Emnjay808 wrote:
Yay, a blizz announcement. Im so hype.
/sarcasm
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.
|
On August 02 2013 18:44 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 18:42 Holy_AT wrote:On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote: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"? 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. Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 18:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote: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"? 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.
Most previous Blizzard games offered playtime in the area of several months, as is nowadays also expected of many multiplayer games.
Many people expected Diablo3 to continue the success of Blizzard titles. Some even hoped it would be even better to make up for the issues starcraft 2 had.
Yes, after a decade of high quality games people expected blizzard to not suddenly drop the quality of their games.
|
On August 02 2013 18:56 Mataza wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 18:44 [F_]aths wrote:On August 02 2013 18:42 Holy_AT wrote:On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote: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"? 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:On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote: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"? 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. Most previous Blizzard games offered playtime in the area of several months, as is nowadays also expected of many multiplayer games. Many people expected Diablo3 to continue the success of Blizzard titles. Some even hoped it would be even better to make up for the issues starcraft 2 had. Yes, after a decade of high quality games people expected blizzard to not suddenly drop the quality of their games.
My take on this:
The previous Blizzard games were played by you when you were younger and therefore had less experience. In your eyes, the quality drops because you are now not as easy to impress. And you probably have less time to play, so the opportunity cost of playing is higher. This requires an even higher quality to get you playing.
I see very few and little issues with SC2. Considering SC2 did what neither BW nor WC3 could (creating widely-noticed RTS e-sports in the western world) I would call it a great success. Both the quality at launch as well as the great development with patches are quite rare.
|
On August 02 2013 06:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 06:41 Amestir wrote:
After a year we finaly add PvP! Surprise. PvP was already added. And it sucked.
So do they actually have PvP now or not?
|
On August 02 2013 18:59 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 18:56 Mataza wrote:On August 02 2013 18:44 [F_]aths wrote:On August 02 2013 18:42 Holy_AT wrote:On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote: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"? 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:On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote: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"? 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. Most previous Blizzard games offered playtime in the area of several months, as is nowadays also expected of many multiplayer games. Many people expected Diablo3 to continue the success of Blizzard titles. Some even hoped it would be even better to make up for the issues starcraft 2 had. Yes, after a decade of high quality games people expected blizzard to not suddenly drop the quality of their games. My take on this: The previous Blizzard games were played by you when you were younger and therefore had less experience. In your eyes, the quality drops because you are now not as easy to impress. And you probably have less time to play, so the opportunity cost of playing is higher. This requires an even higher quality to get you playing. I see very few and little issues with SC2. Considering SC2 did what neither BW nor WC3 could (creating widely-noticed RTS e-sports in the western world) I would call it a great success. Both the quality at launch as well as the great development with patches are quite rare.
This guy is right, no one likes to talk about psychology aspect of things but it is the actual truth. I can realise this kind of approach in me too. It's not the games suck, it's the world and you changing.
|
On August 02 2013 18:55 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 18:54 Emnjay808 wrote:
Yay, a blizz announcement. Im so hype.
/sarcasm 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.
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.
|
On August 02 2013 18:59 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 18:56 Mataza wrote:On August 02 2013 18:44 [F_]aths wrote:On August 02 2013 18:42 Holy_AT wrote:On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote: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"? 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:On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote: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"? 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. Most previous Blizzard games offered playtime in the area of several months, as is nowadays also expected of many multiplayer games. Many people expected Diablo3 to continue the success of Blizzard titles. Some even hoped it would be even better to make up for the issues starcraft 2 had. Yes, after a decade of high quality games people expected blizzard to not suddenly drop the quality of their games. My take on this: The previous Blizzard games were played by you when you were younger and therefore had less experience. In your eyes, the quality drops because you are now not as easy to impress. And you probably have less time to play, so the opportunity cost of playing is higher. This requires an even higher quality to get you playing. I see very few and little issues with SC2. Considering SC2 did what neither BW nor WC3 could, I would call it a great success. Both the quality at launch as well as the great development with patches are quite rare.
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 would not bet that this is gonna be any good news. Last time they announced heartstone and well i was so disappointed that i truly dislike that company now. Besides, Starcraft 2 is the only Blizzard game i care about.
|
Maybe they will announce a refund to all the families of d3 victims?
|
f2p mmorpg that has crytek engine please D>
|
It's going to be a Diablo 3 expansion. It's been enough time for them to think about releasing it now.
|
haven't opened d3 for the past year
can you play offline now or do you still need an internet connection?
|
On August 02 2013 18:28 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +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"?
I am very sure 80% of millions bought d3 because of amazing d2, me too. And if you saw the youtube videos about d3 before it released, you can say they muck the community completely. All best stuff went away at release.
(Someone made a clear post at battle.net how blizz muck the community with all evidence (youtube videos!), the evidence was good enough that you can go to curt, because we didnt get this game what we saw at youtube videos. Blizz deleted this post/thread quickly.)
Metacritic and other give points to a game without incorporate their predecessor game. I dont like this but i agree that this is the most objective view to give points.
In comparison with other games nowadays (LOL, only crap games), its actually pretty easy that sc2 and d3 gets 85+ points.
If you ask me, I give both ~70 points, all other games <50points. I hope gta 5 doesnt suck, gta4 was a huge failure too (in comparison with gta vc and gta sa).
|
I didn't buy HOTS even though the WoL campaign was pretty fun - all because of how disappointing D3 was. I had bought every blizzard game (sometimes more than once) since I understood how to turn on a computer. Maybe one day they will make a diablo game like before.
|
Lost faith in Blizzard after Diablo 3, but hopefully it's a cool announcement =D
|
On August 02 2013 18:53 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 18:48 Fuchsteufelswild wrote: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. 1 – No, they cost only about $40. But Diablo for $60 keeps many players for longer than 1.5x the $40 3d-shooter does. 2 – Every one who buys the game is important. If you play for 2-3 weeks you got a lot out of the game for mere $60. If you stay, then you obviously like the game. I guess that more players still play Diablo 3 than a normal PC game ever sold (using the range of 100-300k sold copies as the point where the game gets you some profit.)
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!
|
Someone needs to take blizzard out the back and put her down... she is getting on and not what she once use to be.
|
On August 02 2013 19:05 Aelfric wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 18:59 [F_]aths wrote:
My take on this:
The previous Blizzard games were played by you when you were younger and therefore had less experience. In your eyes, the quality drops because you are now not as easy to impress. And you probably have less time to play, so the opportunity cost of playing is higher. This requires an even higher quality to get you playing.
I see very few and little issues with SC2. Considering SC2 did what neither BW nor WC3 could (creating widely-noticed RTS e-sports in the western world) I would call it a great success. Both the quality at launch as well as the great development with patches are quite rare. This guy is right, no one likes to talk about psychology aspect of things but it is the actual truth. I can realise this kind of approach in me too. It's not the games suck, it's the world and you changing.
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."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
