|
Game design wise I think that a lot of the things they're doing make sense. Saving all your points for the lvl 30 skills in D2 wasn't good game design, but on the other hand characters in D3 will mean nothing since they're all the same, and you don't gain any skill slots after lvl 30 so where's the characater progression in NM and Hell?
|
imho the font is different. i call fake.
compare for example the "e" from beta to any other e.
|
On August 09 2011 0345 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001.
I think StarCraft 2 is less than great. It's essentially everything SC1 had with nothing that couldn't be added in that game. WC3 was a much more innovative game than SC2 in everyway concerning singleplayer and custom maps. The custom stuff in SC2 hasn't got anywhere near the caliber of WC3's stuff quite yet, so I can hardly call it 'great.'
It's a very small game -- not much content. The singleplayer was poorly written and nothing innovative to speak of. It was also very linear.
I would also argue that WoTLK and Cataclysm are bad WoW expansions.
Honestly, Blizzard has gone down hill since '08. I really don't enjoy any of their new products, even though I had high hopes for each. I don't think Activision is to blame either.
That's just me. I don't expect Diablo 3 will be a very good game. It might be 'good' like SC2 is, but definitely not great.
|
|
|
Unless there are hundreds of similar posts all over the interwebs in the next few minutes, then yes it's a troll.
|
On August 09 2011 04:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 0345 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001. I think StarCraft 2 is less than great. It's essentially everything SC1 had with nothing that couldn't be added in that game. WC3 was a much more innovative game than SC2 in everyway concerning singleplayer and custom maps. The custom stuff in SC2 hasn't got anywhere near the caliber of WC3's stuff quite yet, so I can hardly call it 'great.' It's a very small game -- not much content. The singleplayer was poorly written and nothing innovative to speak of. It was also very linear. I would also argue that WoTLK and Cataclysm are bad WoW expansions. Honestly, Blizzard has gone down hill since '08. I really don't enjoy any of their new products, even though I had high hopes for each. I don't think Activision is to blame either. That's just me. I don't expect Diablo 3 will be a very good game. It might be 'good' like SC2 is, but definitely not great.
Wow that's an extremely jaded view.
|
""Congratulations! You've been selected to participate in the beta test of Daiblo III."
Terrible Troll indeed!
|
On August 09 2011 04:38 DrSeRRoD wrote:""Congratulations! You've been selected to participate in the beta test of Daiblo III." Terrible Troll indeed!
Must admit, that and the "simply select your preferred version" had me laughing so hard I teared up.
|
On August 09 2011 04:31 Playguuu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 04:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 0345 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001. I think StarCraft 2 is less than great. It's essentially everything SC1 had with nothing that couldn't be added in that game. WC3 was a much more innovative game than SC2 in everyway concerning singleplayer and custom maps. The custom stuff in SC2 hasn't got anywhere near the caliber of WC3's stuff quite yet, so I can hardly call it 'great.' It's a very small game -- not much content. The singleplayer was poorly written and nothing innovative to speak of. It was also very linear. I would also argue that WoTLK and Cataclysm are bad WoW expansions. Honestly, Blizzard has gone down hill since '08. I really don't enjoy any of their new products, even though I had high hopes for each. I don't think Activision is to blame either. That's just me. I don't expect Diablo 3 will be a very good game. It might be 'good' like SC2 is, but definitely not great. Wow that's an extremely jaded view.
I actually agree with him. To be honest, I've only finished the campaign once and I don't feel the urge to have another go at it (mainly because every mission is a tuturial for the new unit you get). I'd even go as far as saying that I had to force myself to finish it because it was a bit boring. Practically 99% of all my gameplay hours are spent in multiplayer games, which, in all, is a very small part of the game -which nearly makes me wonder what blizzard has been doing during the five years this game was developed considering the premise is rather basic.
Warcraft 3, on the other hand, had a campaign I really enjoyed (I still love playing through it, as a matter of fact), and a fun multiplayer. It was pretty innovative back in the day, a fresh take on the RTS genre. WC3 feels like a more complete game because they nailed both single and multiplayer.
|
On August 09 2011 04:21 Bibdy wrote:Looks fake-ilicious to me. Obligatory, I can tell from some of the pixels, and from having seen quite a few shops in my time. No, really, the font and the colouring look way off.
Not to mention it has been confirmed that the beta will hit in NA before anywhere else. That "screen shot" is of an EU account. I honestly don't get why people try if they are going to but such little effort into it.
|
On August 09 2011 05:02 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 04:31 Playguuu wrote:On August 09 2011 04:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 0345 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001. I think StarCraft 2 is less than great. It's essentially everything SC1 had with nothing that couldn't be added in that game. WC3 was a much more innovative game than SC2 in everyway concerning singleplayer and custom maps. The custom stuff in SC2 hasn't got anywhere near the caliber of WC3's stuff quite yet, so I can hardly call it 'great.' It's a very small game -- not much content. The singleplayer was poorly written and nothing innovative to speak of. It was also very linear. I would also argue that WoTLK and Cataclysm are bad WoW expansions. Honestly, Blizzard has gone down hill since '08. I really don't enjoy any of their new products, even though I had high hopes for each. I don't think Activision is to blame either. That's just me. I don't expect Diablo 3 will be a very good game. It might be 'good' like SC2 is, but definitely not great. Wow that's an extremely jaded view. I actually agree with him. To be honest, I've only finished the campaign once and I don't feel the urge to have another go at it (mainly because every mission is a tuturial for the new unit you get). Practically 99% of all my gameplay hours are spent in multiplayer games, which, in all, is a very small part of the game -which nearly makes me wonder what blizzard has been doing during the five years this game was developed considering the premise is rather basic. Warcraft 3, on the other hand, had a campaign I really enjoyed (I still love playing through it, as a matter of fact), and a fun multiplayer. It was pretty innovative back in the day, a fresh take on the RTS genre. WC3 feels like a more complete game because they nailed both single and multiplayer.
I'll agree here. WC3 + TFT campaigns blow SC2's right out of the water. SC2 campaign feels like 1 giant tutorial except for the Char missions which actually got me excited.
Yeah they tried to innovate and relieve boredom by changing up the mission objectives, but overall there was no feeling of continuity in the campaign. You didn't feel like you were heading somewhere. No clear objective in sight. Just "mission objective + new unit + grab-the-tech" random bundle of missions.
Don't even get me started on the glorious SC/BW campaign...
|
On August 08 2011 19:44 Zimbapina wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2011 18:12 Nazarid wrote:On August 08 2011 17:08 Serpico wrote:On August 08 2011 17:02 Nazarid wrote:On August 08 2011 16:08 Zimbapina wrote:On August 08 2011 15:56 Spawkuring wrote:On August 08 2011 15:46 Zimbapina wrote:
I agree fully. I just don't see a choice in putting the item to sale on a)the normal AH or b) the RMT AH. Since you can do it for free. But of course this should lower the prices, and in turn blizzard's fixed amount fee grows in comparison to the item value. And when prices are low and people do more transactions, its more money for blizzard. Its a cunning system I admit, but maybe not so morally sound. There's no moral issues behind this. This is nothing more than Blizzard satisfying a market demand. Consumers have repeatedly proven that they will spend real money for virtual items, obviously businesses are going to capitalize on that. The important thing to remember is that the RMAH is not a cash shop. Anything that is sold must be found in-game first, so it's not like it's going to destroy the economy like a cash shop would. Taking a "shortcut" to get an item is not wrong. In fact, the whole concept of "trading" relies on that idea. When a person goes through the effort of getting a really good item, and someone buys that item (using gold or money), then that person is in essence getting an item they didn't truly find for themselves. If your philosophy is that every player must grind for their items themselves, then technically you should be against trading completely, not just the RMAH. In all honesty, the RMAH does nothing new that games didn't already have. People were buying virtual items for real money long before this idea came up, and will continue long after. And it's not like everybody is going to be running around in the best gear. You can be assured that the best stuff is going to be really rare and very expensive. All this change really does is give players a secure way to engage in RMT without the fear of getting scammed or losing their information. That is actually the sad part about it. That blizzard is satisfying a demand. I cannot understand how anyone can get a sense of satisfaction by buying the high end gear for themselves and then just steamrolling through the game with their uber gear. I mean, its still a game and there has to be a sense of achievement, or am I totally off track here ? The mentality seems to be that if I don't get myself the sword of awesomeness soon, then I'll just buy it. I want it, and I want it now. About the GAH vs RMAH. In game currency is limited by the time you spend in game, while real money is not. For many people who have a day job, the amounts are trivial, and as long as everyone thinks that, there will be a lot of transactions. I don't really trade that much, but of course I am not totally against it. It is indeed a thin line of not trading at all, and just buying everything set of gear from the AH/vendor, and just using your time to play the game through. But as I said, the sense of achievement is the thing that suffers. meh your sense of achievement has absolutely no baring on what some one does with their hard earned cash...why do you care? let people spend their money and buy my items i list. Be thankful that "Time is Money" and blizzard gave you a way to buy all their future games for playing one of their games.. man it must be so saddening that you could literally spend 0 dollars on this Auction system but yet make money to buy food, video games, pay rent... the list goes on. And if you think that you wont make enough to pay rent well thats probably right but what is an extra 40 bucks a month that you earn thru this system just by having fun and enjoying a video game.. man did i just smash your nerd brain all over the place? Are you done? You can use the "well just ignore it" argument for almost any topic, but it never gets better. Undermining content in a way the developers themselves promote is never a good thing especially when you're injecting real money into it. When you join a party with people that have the best gear in the first week and you're just using what has dropped and naturally progressing, it disrupts the flow of your gameplay because it removes all challenge. You can't really avoid playing with those people if you ever want to group. So then you have the extreme option of never grouping or just hoping you can get into a group that isnt over geared for the content tremendously. I'd be perfectly fine for cosmetic items only, but this is more than cosmetic. So I am not going to ignore it , but seriously you are not going to stop people from buying diablo 3 items for real money either way... There will always be a want for them some people do not have 80 hours a week to play a video game also most the time players in diablo 2 NEVER even see the items they need for their hero... It wont be removing any such challenge for me or any one for that matter... There will always be people who have these awesome items and those without... the ones without will cry and whine because they don't want to spend real money for the awesome items... also Trading in Diablo 2 happened without the RMAH it was called a 3rd party web page where u were pretty much gambling away items in hopes you did not get screwed over... Cosmetic items never existed in the world of Diablo, nor should they. This game is about items and your own fun, also i honestly think that are raging because you may not get the Best of the best without trading peer to peer or thru a forum.. Even without d2jsp and other web pages like it, You had to trade your items by spaming game names like "Trading SOJ's for zek rune" or goto a forum and post up Looking for so n so item I have this to trade... it was a pain in the ass.. and if you say you had the better top end gear without using the forums or mass spaming games with trading names then well i call you a lier flat out and you know it to be true. Blizzard simply made it a viable way to trade items without having to visit a forum post every ten minutes or going to a 3rd party sight to get screwed over(lose your items or cash) no ammount of complaining from you or others with your veiw that it ruins the game is going to change that fact... If blizzard chose not to place this in the game, then they would be unable to support Diablo 3 for longer than Diablo 2... We all know D2 lost support from them when they let a ladder sit for 2 1/2 years... obviously they did not care about it at that point the terrible Bnet allowed for mass hacks(bots that farmed everything, Map hacks, and flat out insta gib pvp hacks all on closed Bnet and still does) Any ways stop ruining your own experience and just don't buy the game, If you are going to buy the game TAKE ADVANTAGE of this system. Yourself and others with the same opinion are not getting anywhere with people who actually thought this thru....O btw i thought it was a shit system for the first couple days till i actually thought about it. I used to sell items on d2jsp and other web pages also spamed the hell out of forums to trade for the things i needed, o and not only that i made thousands of dollars PLAYING A VIDEO GAME ON MY FREE TIME(hard concept to understand right?) My beef just with blizzard's greedy strategy that is all. I don't really care about D2 and the item black market it had, I am well aware of it, I have played both D1 and D2. It just seems that they have thought it through and they have come to the conclusion that there is no use fighting item selling. Its a change in stance towards item selling and gold farming. On top of that, they want to cater the group of people who have no patience to play the game for any longer than they want to. And at the same time, they are educating a new generation of players to the sad fact that you can buy your way through the/a game. But in the end, the house always wins. I don't really need nerd rage, I just want to get more perspective on the issue. And maybe even to be persuaded to buying D3. But the way I see it now, is that it is a money grab which is as evident as can be.
It is understandable that blizzard took something they knew would happen and turn it into profit, will it increase the sale of items with real money? Not really, it might have some increasing affect but wont be to a degree that would have given 3rd party web pages money. I personally think that with blizzard in control it will make selling items safer and much easier. You can obtain items you need easier, also trade much much easier. I see an item on the Auction house i can try to get into contact with that player and offer items for trade or just buy it for gold/Real money. Players will mostly use the gold auction house for the good but not uber rare items. and the Real money AH will benefit from the very rare items. All in all it wont change your gameplay in the slighestm, I can understand why you feel that blizzards new stance is terrible but think of it this way, would you rather have the company who made the game profit(IE: make money to improve the game or future games) or some 3rd party web page that will never put any money back into the game to improve it or make future blizzard games.
|
On August 09 2011 05:02 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 04:31 Playguuu wrote:On August 09 2011 04:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 0345 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001. I think StarCraft 2 is less than great. It's essentially everything SC1 had with nothing that couldn't be added in that game. WC3 was a much more innovative game than SC2 in everyway concerning singleplayer and custom maps. The custom stuff in SC2 hasn't got anywhere near the caliber of WC3's stuff quite yet, so I can hardly call it 'great.' It's a very small game -- not much content. The singleplayer was poorly written and nothing innovative to speak of. It was also very linear. I would also argue that WoTLK and Cataclysm are bad WoW expansions. Honestly, Blizzard has gone down hill since '08. I really don't enjoy any of their new products, even though I had high hopes for each. I don't think Activision is to blame either. That's just me. I don't expect Diablo 3 will be a very good game. It might be 'good' like SC2 is, but definitely not great. Wow that's an extremely jaded view. I actually agree with him. To be honest, I've only finished the campaign once and I don't feel the urge to have another go at it (mainly because every mission is a tuturial for the new unit you get). I'd even go as far as saying that I had to force myself to finish it because it was a bit boring. Practically 99% of all my gameplay hours are spent in multiplayer games, which, in all, is a very small part of the game -which nearly makes me wonder what blizzard has been doing during the five years this game was developed considering the premise is rather basic. Warcraft 3, on the other hand, had a campaign I really enjoyed (I still love playing through it, as a matter of fact), and a fun multiplayer. It was pretty innovative back in the day, a fresh take on the RTS genre. WC3 feels like a more complete game because they nailed both single and multiplayer.
Well I'd attribute the SC2 "meh" feeling to the way it's structured into 3 games. You're right, it doesn't really feel like a complete game. I was mainly referencing the fact that D3 isn't even out and only a few press people have actually played the beta. Seems a bit too early to pass judgment before anything but the majority of changes people are whining about seem good for the game (and things I've wanted for a while).
|
On August 09 2011 04:12 papaz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 04:01 Zephirdd wrote:
lol @ cz
Regarding PvE/PvP aspect.
The "competitive" aspect of Diablo is not dead. Players still can make toruneys if they want, its all up to the community. Blizzard just won't support it, doesn't mean it can't exist.
Hey, remember SC2, which changed from "races balanced" to "P OP" to "Z OP" to "balanced" to "T OP" without balance patches?
Better yet, remember WC3:TFT which went from "NE OP" to "Undead OP" to "Orc OP" with hardly any patches?
What about SC:BW, which had its last patch, idk, in 2004? I really don't know, yet I find recent reports on the race "balance" changing over the last few years.
Do you know what this is? The proof that balance patches aren't needed to determine game balance(except on serious cases), which leads to A good competitive scene does not need the developer's support to exist.
Maybe Shaman will be UP and Monk will be OP, maybe not, but the thing is, Blizzard won't balance towards PvP, but that doesn't mean they will try to break it.
Basically, D3 PvP will get the same treatment as SC2 Single player. That doesn't mean tourneys can't exist, and that doesn't mean D3 can't be an spectator sport - that just means you can't expect Blizzard to change PvP if that means breaking PvE.
Stop complaining. How do you think the community will organize competitive PvP? I would love if there was some kind of "PvP organization". Else it is gonna get boring sooooo fast if it is only "press to join skirmish PvP". Also I'm sad the PvP part won't even be in beta.
Huh, the same way it was organized on SCBW? I don't really get your point. You mean ranking systems? DotA has no way to rank players, yet there are "best" and "worst" players around there. You mean competitions? There was no help from Valve and little help from Blizzard for CS and SCBW respectively, there is no help from Icefrog for DotA competitions(except maybe advertising on playdota.com), why would it be different for a potential DiabloIII competitive scene?
Other than that, PvP matchmaking has a balancing system which includes your win ratio and the items you use for it, although there will be no available info for it(as there is no ladder).
|
On August 09 2011 05:19 Playguuu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 05:02 maartendq wrote:On August 09 2011 04:31 Playguuu wrote:On August 09 2011 04:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 0345 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001. I think StarCraft 2 is less than great. It's essentially everything SC1 had with nothing that couldn't be added in that game. WC3 was a much more innovative game than SC2 in everyway concerning singleplayer and custom maps. The custom stuff in SC2 hasn't got anywhere near the caliber of WC3's stuff quite yet, so I can hardly call it 'great.' It's a very small game -- not much content. The singleplayer was poorly written and nothing innovative to speak of. It was also very linear. I would also argue that WoTLK and Cataclysm are bad WoW expansions. Honestly, Blizzard has gone down hill since '08. I really don't enjoy any of their new products, even though I had high hopes for each. I don't think Activision is to blame either. That's just me. I don't expect Diablo 3 will be a very good game. It might be 'good' like SC2 is, but definitely not great. Wow that's an extremely jaded view. I actually agree with him. To be honest, I've only finished the campaign once and I don't feel the urge to have another go at it (mainly because every mission is a tuturial for the new unit you get). I'd even go as far as saying that I had to force myself to finish it because it was a bit boring. Practically 99% of all my gameplay hours are spent in multiplayer games, which, in all, is a very small part of the game -which nearly makes me wonder what blizzard has been doing during the five years this game was developed considering the premise is rather basic. Warcraft 3, on the other hand, had a campaign I really enjoyed (I still love playing through it, as a matter of fact), and a fun multiplayer. It was pretty innovative back in the day, a fresh take on the RTS genre. WC3 feels like a more complete game because they nailed both single and multiplayer. Well I'd attribute the SC2 "meh" feeling to the way it's structured into 3 games. You're right, it doesn't really feel like a complete game. I was mainly referencing the fact that D3 isn't even out and only a few press people have actually played the beta. Seems a bit too early to pass judgment before anything but the majority of changes people are whining about seem good for the game (and things I've wanted for a while).
I'm really uncertain about Diablo 3. Generally, gameplay videos of Blizzard tend to have a certain "wow" effect on me. So far they've only managed to get an "is that it?" effect. You could feel the SC2 atmosphere dripping from practically all the unit videos on the official website back in 2007-2008. I really don't feel the diablo atmosphere in the videos about D3. It's just characters fighting rather bland monsters with rather bland skills in equally bland areas. It's as if the whole grim, gothic atmosphere Diablo 1 & 2 had is all but disappeared in favour of a more child-friendly design.
I've been pondering a while on why I think it doesn't feel like Diablo anymore, and I've come to the conclusion that the graphics are too smooth, too polished. They've got Samwise written all over them. I've just watched the demon hunter trailer on the official website, and the character design reminded me more of a night elf than a lethal, dangerous, battle-hardened character you'd expect in the Diablo universe. It's just way too clean. It fits the Warcraft universe but I find it totally unfitting for Diablo.
You can compare it to a band that recorded a new album but lost that rough sound that made them stand out because they now had enough money to hire a so-called top-producer. Sometimes it's good for games to be a bit rough around the edges.
|
honestly I think people are getting far too excited about the beta. it's likely still a month or so off from what we've heard.
|
On August 09 2011 04:31 Playguuu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 04:29 Deadlyhazard wrote:On August 09 2011 0345 cz wrote:
I'll say this now: Blizzard has never made a less than "great" game before, or at least not with it's major titles since like 1997. I think Diablo III is going to break that - it's going to be a dumbed down game with cartoonish graphics. Worst of all, it won't even have the depth of Diablo II, a game that came out on 3 CD-ROMS in 2001. I think StarCraft 2 is less than great. It's essentially everything SC1 had with nothing that couldn't be added in that game. WC3 was a much more innovative game than SC2 in everyway concerning singleplayer and custom maps. The custom stuff in SC2 hasn't got anywhere near the caliber of WC3's stuff quite yet, so I can hardly call it 'great.' It's a very small game -- not much content. The singleplayer was poorly written and nothing innovative to speak of. It was also very linear. I would also argue that WoTLK and Cataclysm are bad WoW expansions. Honestly, Blizzard has gone down hill since '08. I really don't enjoy any of their new products, even though I had high hopes for each. I don't think Activision is to blame either. That's just me. I don't expect Diablo 3 will be a very good game. It might be 'good' like SC2 is, but definitely not great. Wow that's an extremely jaded view.
Chalk another in line for being "jaded," then.
I feel exactly the same way.
Some of us are not happy with Blizzard, and that's a fair view to have. I dislike how we keep hearing things like, "You're going to play it anyway!" just because Blizzard made it. I tried SCII. I do *not* play it. I tried WotLK. I quit WoW.
It's ok to look at what's coming, have high hopes and still also feel a little apprehensive after past "burns."
|
On August 09 2011 05:43 jimmyjingle wrote:
honestly I think people are getting far too excited about the beta. it's likely still a month or so off from what we've heard.
There were beta tournaments with money for SCII.
Beta's are taken wayyyy too seriously.
|
On August 09 2011 05:55 TheGlassface wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 05:43 jimmyjingle wrote:
honestly I think people are getting far too excited about the beta. it's likely still a month or so off from what we've heard. There were beta tournaments with money for SCII. Beta's are taken wayyyy too seriously.
Then you are going to be dissapointed. D3 beta won't be anywhere close to SC2, it doesn't need to. Balancing isn't a concern, it's more about the technical side of things. That's why you will only play content worth of about 1-2 hours. It will much shorter than SC2 and much less important, because it can be.
|
On August 09 2011 05:55 TheGlassface wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 05:43 jimmyjingle wrote:
honestly I think people are getting far too excited about the beta. it's likely still a month or so off from what we've heard. There were beta tournaments with money for SCII. Beta's are taken wayyyy too seriously.
huh. How is a competitive RTS beta similar?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
