|
On August 12 2011 11:00 Kurr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 10:48 NotJack wrote:On August 12 2011 10:38 Kurr wrote:On August 12 2011 10:32 NotJack wrote:On August 12 2011 10:24 Kurr wrote:On August 12 2011 10:09 cjin wrote:On August 12 2011 08:28 Aruno wrote:If Diablo 3 is a no mistakes games. Then I will be very annoyed. One of the things I got a lot of satisfaction out of, was working out mistakes in characters I made. It would force you to think long term. The ability to change when and how you like. Seems like what cheaters did in Diablo 2. It makes for unchallenging, low thinking experience. Why cannot they just make Diablo 3 unforgiving?  I feel like a "retro" gamer, asking for games to be hard again >_< I would not consider "I hope I don't press wrong icon when i have unused skillpoint" as hard or challenging. Just annoying. And anyone who wants unforgiving experience can just roll for hardmode char. Haven´t played Guild Wars, but what I have read, it have same kind of skillsystem. And it was so good they are using same for GW2. Yes, it may not be as huge timesink since you don´t need to levelup character all over again from lvl1 when you want to use new fotmspec. But on the other hand it means less income for goldfarmers as they can´t sell that many chars. I've played over 3000 hours on Guild Wars. It's one of my favorite games of all time. The difference is that the game is massive. There are so many things to do on a character besides building it up (hint : it takes less than a day to reach max level (20) without any help or rushing). It's not even comparable to diablo 3 that has less than 100 hours of gameplay on a character even if you decide to get through hell. The skill system in Guild Wars works because it would be irrational to do it any other way (since there are like 800+ skills in the game). Okay, so how does that mean it won't work in Diablo 3? I feel like I'm giving rhetoric lessons. It's an entirely different genre of game. Diablo 3 gives you a very limited amount of skills for each class. The replayability is already limited. This completely eliminates it (and eliminates the need to choose which skills to power up). It's not comparable. Diablo 3 will be over in terms of replayability as soon as you've made 1 of each character. It's horrible news. So you think the the majority of players who take the extra time to level every class will immediately stop after they finished leveling them? Not immediatly. Much faster than in Diablo 2 thoughSo you think more people leveled the same class multiple times in D2 to try different builds than people will enjoy experimenting with endless builds on one character in D3? Absolutely. Endless builds? Please, it will take someone a few hours to try the different skill combos/runes. There's also the lost of the feeling of growth of your character (see below)So you think implementing a worse skill system is a good justification to having more replayability? It's not worse in my opinion, which has been the point of pretty much ALL my posts in this thread today. I like the fact that I need to CHOOSE between skills. It makes me feel like my character is actually gaining experience as I go along. When you can just switch at any point in time (and yes, that includes re-specs without any drawbacks for the other person who quoted me, although it's also about point distribution) you lose the immersion of the game. It works in an MMORPG like Guild Wars because it's a different type of game. Hack and Slash games are ALL about character development. Gaining experience, skills, attributes and loot and customizing your character however you want.
Everything, everythinggggggg, you said was wrong. Bolded answers Why do you insist on being so condescending in every single one of your posts? You know you can make a post without trying to instigate me right? I know not everyone agrees with me; there's no need to use that tone. I don't agree with your points but I could respect your opinion if you learned how to share it. *edit : To add : I don't want a superman character that can do everything at once. It's boring. I want to make choices and play a character through a game. Go play Dragon Age for example : you make choices along the way and it's half the fun of the game to pick your skills and live with it. It's a bit different in Diablo because of the amount of skill points but it's the same concept. Your character grows in a certain path as you play it. I like being able to max 1 skill early or spread them out to have more skills whenever I want. I don't really like re-specs (at least, not if it's more than a 1 time end-game thing) either because they ruin the fun of training a character.
There are 2.8 billion combinations of skills and runes for each class. It's going to take one person a hell of a lot longer than a few hours per class to experiment with them all. Don't be naive.
On August 12 2011 11:45 Supamang wrote:
Why the fuck do people ALWAYS judge a game before it even comes out?
People are sitting here saying that the no skill point system will do this or make that happen. What the fuck? Unless Im mistaken, Diablo 3 isnt out yet and no one even knows how many fucking skills each class has, no one even knows exactly how the skill progression will actually work. How the fuck are people even judging this system already? All I see is people going "Herp Derp! Its different from the game I grew up with! It must suck Herp Derp!"
I loved Diablo 2. I made many successful characters starting from scratch all the way through Hell. I could probably play it right now and still have a great time. But you guys gotta stop jumping to conclusions before you even know whats going on. For the people that strongly object to D3 having a different skill system, please for the love of God explain what exactly is wrong with the D3 system. If you dont have any details that you can specifically cite from the D3 skill system, then kindly shut the fuck up and stop assuming things
There are 30 skills for each class, you get one skill slot every six levels (1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30) until you reach the max of six active skills. At other levels (10, 20, and 30 IIRC) you get passives, meaning you can have 6 skills and 3 passives active at any one time. We know this because Blizzard told us.
|
On August 12 2011 12:02 Assault_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 11:51 NotJack wrote:On August 12 2011 11:45 Supamang wrote:
Why the fuck do people ALWAYS judge a game before it even comes out?
People are sitting here saying that the no skill point system will do this or make that happen. What the fuck? Unless Im mistaken, Diablo 3 isnt out yet and no one even knows how many fucking skills each class has, no one even knows exactly how the skill progression will actually work. How the fuck are people even judging this system already? All I see is people going "Herp Derp! Its different from the game I grew up with! It must suck Herp Derp!"
I loved Diablo 2. I made many successful characters starting from scratch all the way through Hell. I could probably play it right now and still have a great time. But you guys gotta stop jumping to conclusions before you even know whats going on. For the people that strongly object to D3 having a different skill system, please for the love of God explain what exactly is wrong with the D3 system. If you dont have any details that you can specifically cite from the D3 skill system, then kindly shut the fuck up and stop assuming things Amazing point, the Diablo 3 thread should only consist of what we did in Diablo 2 and not guessing or talking about what we know about Diablo 3. This guy gets it man. are u being sarcastic?
Again? lol, I'll leave the mystery up to you
|
Agreed, Ray. D1 is the kind of game that totally grabs you by your balls and threatens to bite them off if you stop playing, its that scary and convincing. In fact that can be said by many of the mid-late 90s Western RPG games. In fact all the Western RPG masterpieces(bg, p:t, f1,f2,d1) were crafted during that time, and shared the similar vibe of immersion that D1 too achieved. In the 2000s it disappeared, and d2 too unfortunately lost it.
|
On August 12 2011 12:07 STS17 wrote:
There are 30 skills for each class, you get one skill slot every six levels (1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30) until you reach the max of six active skills. At other levels (10, 20, and 30 IIRC) you get passives, meaning you can have 6 skills and 3 passives active at any one time. We know this because Blizzard told us.
I still can't help but feel that is still a silly system.
With my understanding with this set up, we likely won't have access to the cute little situational skills when we randomly need them.
In Diablo 2 examples:
Want to grab that full rejuv potion from across the river in act 3 with telekinesis to avoid the monsters there? sorry, you didn't choose telekinesis as one of your six skills. There goes a random cute option from the game for no reason.
Found a random situation for a relatively unused curse or aura? Too bad. Want to taunt an opponent in pvp with less used skills without having to gimp your character? Too bad. Want to roleplay/get into the story (lol) and use multiple weaker skills when taking down a boss? Too bad.
I guess my problem is that I don't see how the system enhances game-play while I can see how it can detract from game-play
|
On August 12 2011 12:17 SiguR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 12:07 STS17 wrote:
There are 30 skills for each class, you get one skill slot every six levels (1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30) until you reach the max of six active skills. At other levels (10, 20, and 30 IIRC) you get passives, meaning you can have 6 skills and 3 passives active at any one time. We know this because Blizzard told us. I still can't help but feel that is still a silly system. With my understanding with this set up, we likely won't have access to the cute little situational skills when we randomly need them. In Diablo 2 examples: Want to grab that full rejuv potion from across the river in act 3 with telekinesis to avoid the monsters there? sorry, you didn't choose telekinesis as one of your six skills. There goes a random cute option from the game for no reason. Found a random situation for a relatively unused curse or aura? Too bad. Want to taunt an opponent in pvp with less used skills without having to gimp your character? Too bad. Want to roleplay/get into the story (lol) and use multiple weaker skills when taking down a boss? Too bad. I guess my problem is that I don't see how the system enhances game-play while I can see how it can detract from game-play
At the moment you can change skills whenever you want, so gg on that super specific argument.
It enhances gameplay from both being an easier way to be introduced to using your skill slots and your skills, while also giving you much more creative control over the roles of your character.
The only downside is that a small percentage of players will always have that feeling in their head that hates how you can't make a mistake that will permanently mess up your character and waste hours of your life.
|
On August 12 2011 12:17 SiguR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 12:07 STS17 wrote:
There are 30 skills for each class, you get one skill slot every six levels (1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30) until you reach the max of six active skills. At other levels (10, 20, and 30 IIRC) you get passives, meaning you can have 6 skills and 3 passives active at any one time. We know this because Blizzard told us. I still can't help but feel that is still a silly system. With my understanding with this set up, we likely won't have access to the cute little situational skills when we randomly need them. In Diablo 2 examples: Want to grab that full rejuv potion from across the river in act 3 with telekinesis to avoid the monsters there? sorry, you didn't choose telekinesis as one of your six skills. There goes a random cute option from the game for no reason. Found a random situation for a relatively unused curse or aura? Too bad. Want to taunt an opponent in pvp with less used skills without having to gimp your character? Too bad. Want to roleplay/get into the story (lol) and use multiple weaker skills when taking down a boss? Too bad. I guess my problem is that I don't see how the system enhances game-play while I can see how it can detract from game-play
The speculation is that they're doing this to cater to console players (yes I know . Though it's not that bad). They need to fit all the abilities on the controllers somehow and they need to make consoles able to compete with PCs in terms of game efficiency.
AFAIK I'm assuming they're making it so PS3 players can play with PC, vice versa. They want console players to be able to play on par with PC players by doing this (again it's all speculation but it has been confirmed that they're working on a console port).
Though I don't think it's a big deal thanks to being able to respec and the rune combos.
The rune combos is probably the thing I'm looking forward to the most. Also they've said they wanted most skills to be useful (in contrast to D2 where Fire"bolt" was always inferior to Fire"ball" for example or Lightning Strike being a weaker version of Chain Lightning, etc).
I don't know why but Blizzard likes to pretend everything is for the customer (the online only thing. No LAN in SC2, blablabla) when in fact it's for the other reason.
I know it's a PR move but most people see through it. If it were Bobby Kotick in charge of PR, he would outright admit "It's all about the $$$. Not about the customers. If I were in charge of the prices, I'd raise it MOAR!" (He actually said that in terms of Guitar Hero and Rock Band controllers). That's one thing I like about Bobby Kotick - He admits that it's about the $$ and how $ makes the world go round, etc. Sure he's greedy but at least he admits it and doesn't pretend it's about anything else.
|
On August 12 2011 12:07 STS17 wrote:
There are 30 skills for each class, you get one skill slot every six levels (1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30) until you reach the max of six active skills. At other levels (10, 20, and 30 IIRC) you get passives, meaning you can have 6 skills and 3 passives active at any one time. We know this because Blizzard told us.
Fair enough, I didnt hear about that. I looked around and several websites said that the skill tree system was overhauled but mentioned that no details were known.
|
On August 12 2011 10:38 Kurr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 10:32 NotJack wrote:On August 12 2011 10:24 Kurr wrote:On August 12 2011 10:09 cjin wrote:On August 12 2011 08:28 Aruno wrote:If Diablo 3 is a no mistakes games. Then I will be very annoyed. One of the things I got a lot of satisfaction out of, was working out mistakes in characters I made. It would force you to think long term. The ability to change when and how you like. Seems like what cheaters did in Diablo 2. It makes for unchallenging, low thinking experience. Why cannot they just make Diablo 3 unforgiving? I feel like a "retro" gamer, asking for games to be hard again >_< I would not consider "I hope I don't press wrong icon when i have unused skillpoint" as hard or challenging. Just annoying. And anyone who wants unforgiving experience can just roll for hardmode char. Haven´t played Guild Wars, but what I have read, it have same kind of skillsystem. And it was so good they are using same for GW2. Yes, it may not be as huge timesink since you don´t need to levelup character all over again from lvl1 when you want to use new fotmspec. But on the other hand it means less income for goldfarmers as they can´t sell that many chars. I've played over 3000 hours on Guild Wars. It's one of my favorite games of all time. The difference is that the game is massive. There are so many things to do on a character besides building it up (hint : it takes less than a day to reach max level (20) without any help or rushing). It's not even comparable to diablo 3 that has less than 100 hours of gameplay on a character even if you decide to get through hell. The skill system in Guild Wars works because it would be irrational to do it any other way (since there are like 800+ skills in the game). Okay, so how does that mean it won't work in Diablo 3? I feel like I'm giving rhetoric lessons. It's an entirely different genre of game. Diablo 3 gives you a very limited amount of skills for each class. The replayability is already limited. This completely eliminates it (and eliminates the need to choose which skills to power up). It's not comparable. Diablo 3 will be over in terms of replayability as soon as you've made 1 of each character. It's horrible news.
The guy just said each class has 30 skills. This is the exact same amount as in Diablo 2. How is Diablo 3 most limited than Diablo 2?
|
well this discussion sure is insightful. what i've learned from the past 30 pages:
RMAH will kill d3 and it's heavily competitive nature and leave hundreds of thousands of [diablo 2...] farmers jobless
in relation to the above, blizzard is a cold and heartless machine only capable of making it's truest fans unhappy
d3 does not have the d2 skill system and therefore will immediately tank
d3 will be forced online so blizzard can keep us chained to their battle.net services like slaves to a galley
again, the skill system of d3 is a major design flaw because it is not identical to diablo 2 and will not provide as much fun as [guild wars?]...
these revelations gave me great pause and touched my soul
|
On August 12 2011 12:24 NotJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 12:17 SiguR wrote:On August 12 2011 12:07 STS17 wrote:
There are 30 skills for each class, you get one skill slot every six levels (1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30) until you reach the max of six active skills. At other levels (10, 20, and 30 IIRC) you get passives, meaning you can have 6 skills and 3 passives active at any one time. We know this because Blizzard told us. I still can't help but feel that is still a silly system. With my understanding with this set up, we likely won't have access to the cute little situational skills when we randomly need them. In Diablo 2 examples: Want to grab that full rejuv potion from across the river in act 3 with telekinesis to avoid the monsters there? sorry, you didn't choose telekinesis as one of your six skills. There goes a random cute option from the game for no reason. Found a random situation for a relatively unused curse or aura? Too bad. Want to taunt an opponent in pvp with less used skills without having to gimp your character? Too bad. Want to roleplay/get into the story (lol) and use multiple weaker skills when taking down a boss? Too bad. I guess my problem is that I don't see how the system enhances game-play while I can see how it can detract from game-play At the moment you can change skills whenever you want, so gg on that super specific argument. It enhances gameplay from both being an easier way to be introduced to using your skill slots and your skills, while also giving you much more creative control over the roles of your character. The only downside is that a small percentage of players will always have that feeling in their head that hates how you can't make a mistake that will permanently mess up your character and waste hours of your life.
I am one of those "small percentage"(how would you know how much percentage?).
I hope I am no part of a minority.
To me, the idea of no mistakes is from the idea that people shouldn't see their "failings". No repercussions for being a 'fuckup', just redo that test. You didn't fail. You just didn't achieve yet.
>_> Really... The underworld of the Devil really just became the playground of the devil.
|
On August 12 2011 13:27 Aruno wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 12:24 NotJack wrote:On August 12 2011 12:17 SiguR wrote:On August 12 2011 12:07 STS17 wrote:
There are 30 skills for each class, you get one skill slot every six levels (1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30) until you reach the max of six active skills. At other levels (10, 20, and 30 IIRC) you get passives, meaning you can have 6 skills and 3 passives active at any one time. We know this because Blizzard told us. I still can't help but feel that is still a silly system. With my understanding with this set up, we likely won't have access to the cute little situational skills when we randomly need them. In Diablo 2 examples: Want to grab that full rejuv potion from across the river in act 3 with telekinesis to avoid the monsters there? sorry, you didn't choose telekinesis as one of your six skills. There goes a random cute option from the game for no reason. Found a random situation for a relatively unused curse or aura? Too bad. Want to taunt an opponent in pvp with less used skills without having to gimp your character? Too bad. Want to roleplay/get into the story (lol) and use multiple weaker skills when taking down a boss? Too bad. I guess my problem is that I don't see how the system enhances game-play while I can see how it can detract from game-play At the moment you can change skills whenever you want, so gg on that super specific argument. It enhances gameplay from both being an easier way to be introduced to using your skill slots and your skills, while also giving you much more creative control over the roles of your character. The only downside is that a small percentage of players will always have that feeling in their head that hates how you can't make a mistake that will permanently mess up your character and waste hours of your life. I am one of those "small percentage"(how would you know how much percentage?). I hope I am no part of a minority. To me, the idea of no mistakes is from the idea that people shouldn't see their "failings". No repercussions for being a 'fuckup', just redo that test. You didn't fail. You just didn't achieve yet. >_> Really... The underworld of the Devil really just became the playground of the devil.
I wasn't mocking that viewpoint, and if you had a decent amount of awareness you'd realize that these forums most likely have the largest community of those types of people, myself included. As I said in a previous post there always will be that feeling that you can't mess up which takes a little away, but it's not something I honestly could ever be bothered with knowing how much better of a system this is.
If you think that choosing your skills is what makes the underwold of the Devil hard, you're playing a game you want to be challenged in for a really weir dreason.
|
On August 12 2011 13:17 jimmyjingle wrote:
d3 will be forced online so blizzard can keep us chained to their battle.net services like slaves to a galley
That's actually a valid point. What I liked about Diablo was the fact that I could use my bandwidth for something else while playing it and getting a couple of friends come over with their machines to throw up an impromptu LAN and have a laugh while re-playing the game for the n-th time.
Seriously, fuck all this online-only bullshit. If I buy the game then why the hell am I not able to bring it with me to some backwater lodge at the lake without Internet access?
P. S.
Blizzard should make Diablo 1 available for free on their website as an advertisement campaign. They should also add The Lost Vikings there too (of course, everything with new installers/launchers so it would work on W7).
|
On August 12 2011 09:54 Chairman Ray wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 09:30 magicmUnky wrote:
Sooo.... I'm kinda keen to go back and play diablo 1 or 2... are they worth it? Anything a newb should know in particular for Diablo 1?
I played it when I was a kid and haven't looked at it since... any tips? To me, Diablo 1 and 2 are completely different games. Diablo 1 was an absolute masterpiece. It's hard to say a lot without spoiling any of the content. Diablo 1 had a very well crafted complement between plotline, art style, music, and setting. There's so much emotional impact during the entire course of the game. Even after playing several times through, I was still fully immersed into the Diablo world. By the standards of today's games, Diablo 1 is slower and simpler, but the atmosphere of the game is still worth playing through. Diablo 2 to me was a complete flip around. It lost the great plotline, music, and setting that Diablo 1 had. It retained the art style during a few parts, but was meaningless without anything to complement it. So basically any plotline or emotion is completely thrown out the window. However Diablo 2 has some of the best action out of any game. There's a wide variety of classes, skills, and items. The skills were all really fun to use. Making your own skill builds for the first time was a blast as well. Playing every class felt like a completely different game as well. I would recommend playing through them both. Each of them is short enough to beat within one day, so you'll get the basic idea of the diablo world. Both games have a lot of replay value if you want to keep going, especially Diablo 2.
Well put. D1 was like a work of art, while D2 was a fun game and just not quite as good atmosphere/story wise.
On August 12 2011 10:37 Zephirdd wrote:
Not like customization is out of question. That's what the rune system is for. It's just that the mechanic of points isn't there anymore.
Well, I hope that does work out to be a fun way to customize. We'll just have to wait and see.
Another problem is what is the point of leveling up? In D2 when you level up it's like "SWEET I get new skills and new stats!" But in D3 it will be "meh". Only every 6 levels will you be excited for new skills(if that's how they are still doing the different tiers).
|
On August 12 2011 13:45 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 13:17 jimmyjingle wrote:
d3 will be forced online so blizzard can keep us chained to their battle.net services like slaves to a galley
That's actually a valid point. What I liked about Diablo was the fact that I could use my bandwidth for something else while playing it and getting a couple of friends come over with their machines to throw up an impromptu LAN and have a laugh while re-playing the game for the n-th time. Seriously, fuck all this online-only bullshit. If I buy the game then why the hell am I not able to bring it with me to some backwater lodge at the lake without Internet access? P. S. Blizzard should make Diablo 1 available for free on their website as an advertisement campaign. They should also add The Lost Vikings there too (of course, everything with new installers/launchers so it would work on W7).
Every single person who is mad about always-online completely ignores the benefits it gives. Sorry your dial-up can't watch porn while playing D3, enjoy much better performance, load times, additional content, and much better security.
|
On August 12 2011 13:48 NotJack wrote:
Every single person who is mad about always-online completely ignores the benefits it gives. Sorry your dial-up can't watch porn while playing D3, enjoy much better performance, load times, additional content, and much better security.
How does playing online-only improve performance is beyond me. I was talking about playing single-player here mostly so I don't give a damn about load times and security. And if additional content means something like Diablo: Hellfire or Diablo II: Lord of Destruction then I'd like to opt-out of it right off the bat.
|
On August 12 2011 13:52 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 13:48 NotJack wrote:
Every single person who is mad about always-online completely ignores the benefits it gives. Sorry your dial-up can't watch porn while playing D3, enjoy much better performance, load times, additional content, and much better security. How does playing online-only improve performance is beyond me. I was talking about playing single-player here mostly so I don't give a damn about load times and security. And if additional content means something like Diablo: Hellfire or Diablo II: Lord of Destruction then I'd like to opt-out of it right off the bat.
Anyone can personally be negative, not everyone can make a good point. If you think the majority of people don't think the give and take is worth it for always-online, then you can make a point. Saying I don't like something is useless.
|
On August 12 2011 13:52 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 13:48 NotJack wrote:
Every single person who is mad about always-online completely ignores the benefits it gives. Sorry your dial-up can't watch porn while playing D3, enjoy much better performance, load times, additional content, and much better security. How does playing online-only improve performance is beyond me. I was talking about playing single-player here mostly so I don't give a damn about load times and security. And if additional content means something like Diablo: Hellfire or Diablo II: Lord of Destruction then I'd like to opt-out of it right off the bat.
You remind me of the dark days when I used to work retail. "Why should I have to get XP on my new computer 95 works fine I dont want anything new blah blah blah.
New AAA titles very much have and are continuing to move to an online only format. Players who play online statistically stick with the game longer and that means more potential after sales such as rmt, expansion, dlc purchases. As well as protecting the the software for the developer. If you don't like it too bad go load up your eight-track
|
On August 12 2011 13:58 abominare wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 13:52 Manit0u wrote:On August 12 2011 13:48 NotJack wrote:
Every single person who is mad about always-online completely ignores the benefits it gives. Sorry your dial-up can't watch porn while playing D3, enjoy much better performance, load times, additional content, and much better security. How does playing online-only improve performance is beyond me. I was talking about playing single-player here mostly so I don't give a damn about load times and security. And if additional content means something like Diablo: Hellfire or Diablo II: Lord of Destruction then I'd like to opt-out of it right off the bat. You remind me of the dark days when I used to work retail. "Why should I have to get XP on my new computer 95 works fine I dont want anything new blah blah blah. New AAA titles very much have and are continuing to move to an online only format. Players who play online statistically stick with the game longer and that means more potential after sales such as rmt, expansion, dlc purchases. As well as protecting the the software for the developer. If you don't like it too bad go load up your eight-track
sigh so many posts like these in the thread
why are you arguing with his concerns? if that customer gets what he wants, it will in no way affect you. you realize this?
|
IDK I have a feeling there will be an exclusively offline version of D3. I read a lot of legitimate negative feedback about not being able to play due to being if africa and other crazy shit like that. Something has gotta give in order for these players to actually play. And something always gives
|
On August 12 2011 14:31 jimmyjingle wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 13:58 abominare wrote:On August 12 2011 13:52 Manit0u wrote:On August 12 2011 13:48 NotJack wrote:
Every single person who is mad about always-online completely ignores the benefits it gives. Sorry your dial-up can't watch porn while playing D3, enjoy much better performance, load times, additional content, and much better security. How does playing online-only improve performance is beyond me. I was talking about playing single-player here mostly so I don't give a damn about load times and security. And if additional content means something like Diablo: Hellfire or Diablo II: Lord of Destruction then I'd like to opt-out of it right off the bat. You remind me of the dark days when I used to work retail. "Why should I have to get XP on my new computer 95 works fine I dont want anything new blah blah blah. New AAA titles very much have and are continuing to move to an online only format. Players who play online statistically stick with the game longer and that means more potential after sales such as rmt, expansion, dlc purchases. As well as protecting the the software for the developer. If you don't like it too bad go load up your eight-track sigh so many posts like these in the thread why are you arguing with his concerns? if that customer gets what he wants, it will in no way affect you. you realize this?
As most of the posts in this conversation shows, it does affect him. If people can play offline, all of the benefits that make always-online a good thing are out the window, and they vastly outnumber the single benefit of mouth breathers being able to play while embarrassing themselves on planes because they can't go three hours without being bad at their barb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
