|
There's no "offline singleplayer", there is definitely still a SINGLE PLAYER. You only use a follower in single player, it's a pretty big part of the game. I agree with break from the thread...
|
On August 14 2011 12:49 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 18:56 NotJack wrote:On August 13 2011 17:43 NoobSkills wrote:On August 13 2011 17:34 NotJack wrote:On August 13 2011 17:24 Serpico wrote:On August 13 2011 17:21 NotJack wrote:On August 13 2011 17:15 maartendq wrote:On August 13 2011 16:57 NotJack wrote:
There's enough info and controversy based around the always-online debate to provide about four good posts, all of which have been rehashed hundreds of times.
You're all special, smart snowflakes, but your argument that more than .1% of people have bad int or some people just want offline singleplayer or some people want to lan or the idea that you're not going to buy the game don't change the fact that D3 not only should be always-online, but HAS to in order to keep a fair environment and maintain a healthy economy. You really need to understand this; SC2 didn't require online-only to be as great a game as Blizzard wants, D3 does.
Don't be shocked when people who have been participating in this thread are being condescending to you, your laziness and refusal to be informed/less stubborn has brought this thread to a halt, spinning around in a mindless, discussion-less vortex of people playing pattycake with poor ideas.
You can read this post and get mad like most mindless people do when they have no arguments to stand on, or you can just take a nice fresh breath of air and talk about something besides how Jay Wilson is the new Dark Wanderer because he's forcing you to stay online to enjoy a game we've all been excited about for years. In all honesty, I don't care about a good economy when I'm soloing. It's just not important. Yes, nerd apathy is a very common argument because you don't need to prove the point since it's opinion. Unfortunately it's not a good point because all these selfish people can't seem to understand that Blizzard is making a game for more than you, and want to make the best game possible for everyone. The argument isn't what you want that's not there, it's what should be there to make it best for all. Or they just want to try and stop piracy and in turn punish legit customers who want single player. I dont get the excuse making for cutting out features. As has been said in many, many posts, including the one you're quoting, they did it because the benefits outweighed the costs. I don't want to think there's a mental gap in this discussion but I'm being left with little other conclusions. On August 13 2011 17:29 TheGreenMachine wrote:On August 13 2011 17:18 Barett wrote:On August 13 2011 14:54 Pufftrees wrote:On August 13 2011 14:51 Barett wrote:On August 13 2011 14:29 Pufftrees wrote:
There is no offline play, why would there be? Everyone has internet, you can still play single player. The benefits of online only play greatly outweight the 0.01 percent where your internet goes down and you still want to play. What about people like me who were looking forward to playing on the go on my Laptop? Now that is not possible T_T. Pretty ignorant post. If your laptop is decent enough to run d3, and you are such an on the go guy that its going to be your main play style, then get wireless internet card. edit : why do i keep replying to the trolls -_- people really can't think like this Are you calling me a troll? I only really use my Laptop on the go for a hour a day. I cannot justify getting a portable internet access card for 15$+ a month when I don't use it all that often. But you can justify blizzard changing all of their code and everything so you can play offline? The difficulty of changing code isn't even the thing Blizzard wants to prevent, it's ruining the community and economy. It isn't about the benefits outweighing the costs though you are on the right track. Since they have to spend less time programming by not programming a single player into the game they actually save money while making sure that everyone buys their game. I really don't see many people playing offline anyway. Perhaps there are more than I think, but all 5 of them are out of luck. You think they aren't making single player to save money. Time for another break from this thread. You misunderstood what I wrote, so I will dumb it down. Not making single player saves them money. Not making single player also makes them money. Win and Win for Blizzard. Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 10:34 Floobie wrote:
I also loved D2C.
If you found a rare with FHR and +50HP you could consider yourself rich, or a +IAS Rune bow. I remember selling a really nice rare Cedar bow for 15 SOJ.
Also Legit BvB in classic was my favourite thing to do for a long time and making his item set so perfect was all i focused on. (Before the Life\mana leech nerf.) Also a BvX Lance barb with a Blinkbats + Hawkmail always in my inventory.
In LoD i dont think i ever had a rare that was better then a rune word or unique.
So i would rather D3 is more like Classic in that Rares can actually be valuable, and for example not every Blizz sorc wanting a Deaths Fathom. I understand completely. Want the possibility of GODLY rares, but the safe build of standard gear. Would be nice and make it completely random who gets the best of the best.
Diablo single player system has been turned into multiplayer. No saving/losing money on that front, cause the campaign is pretty much online whereas it could have been offline as well, the same.. thing lol. You must not be understand what mr Not is trying to tell you.
I really wanna click something to death, the wait is so unbearable I cleaned my emails in hopes of a Path of Exile beta invite or Blizzard notifications. Clicking to death in search of rare loot FTW, non-subscription style.
One question I jsut thought of, will you start in Hardcore or Softcore right away?
|
One question I jsut thought of, will you start in Hardcore or Softcore right away?
Probably have to unlock Hardcore, unless you're talking about Path of Exile.
|
On August 14 2011 13:25 StinkyBoots wrote:Show nested quote +One question I jsut thought of, will you start in Hardcore or Softcore right away? Probably have to unlock Hardcore, unless you're talking about Path of Exile.
Why would you have to unlock Hardcore?
As an avid HC player, that would be stupid.
-.-
|
On August 14 2011 12:49 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 18:56 NotJack wrote:On August 13 2011 17:43 NoobSkills wrote:On August 13 2011 17:34 NotJack wrote:On August 13 2011 17:24 Serpico wrote:On August 13 2011 17:21 NotJack wrote:On August 13 2011 17:15 maartendq wrote:On August 13 2011 16:57 NotJack wrote:
There's enough info and controversy based around the always-online debate to provide about four good posts, all of which have been rehashed hundreds of times.
You're all special, smart snowflakes, but your argument that more than .1% of people have bad int or some people just want offline singleplayer or some people want to lan or the idea that you're not going to buy the game don't change the fact that D3 not only should be always-online, but HAS to in order to keep a fair environment and maintain a healthy economy. You really need to understand this; SC2 didn't require online-only to be as great a game as Blizzard wants, D3 does.
Don't be shocked when people who have been participating in this thread are being condescending to you, your laziness and refusal to be informed/less stubborn has brought this thread to a halt, spinning around in a mindless, discussion-less vortex of people playing pattycake with poor ideas.
You can read this post and get mad like most mindless people do when they have no arguments to stand on, or you can just take a nice fresh breath of air and talk about something besides how Jay Wilson is the new Dark Wanderer because he's forcing you to stay online to enjoy a game we've all been excited about for years. In all honesty, I don't care about a good economy when I'm soloing. It's just not important. Yes, nerd apathy is a very common argument because you don't need to prove the point since it's opinion. Unfortunately it's not a good point because all these selfish people can't seem to understand that Blizzard is making a game for more than you, and want to make the best game possible for everyone. The argument isn't what you want that's not there, it's what should be there to make it best for all. Or they just want to try and stop piracy and in turn punish legit customers who want single player. I dont get the excuse making for cutting out features. As has been said in many, many posts, including the one you're quoting, they did it because the benefits outweighed the costs. I don't want to think there's a mental gap in this discussion but I'm being left with little other conclusions. On August 13 2011 17:29 TheGreenMachine wrote:On August 13 2011 17:18 Barett wrote:On August 13 2011 14:54 Pufftrees wrote:On August 13 2011 14:51 Barett wrote:On August 13 2011 14:29 Pufftrees wrote:
There is no offline play, why would there be? Everyone has internet, you can still play single player. The benefits of online only play greatly outweight the 0.01 percent where your internet goes down and you still want to play. What about people like me who were looking forward to playing on the go on my Laptop? Now that is not possible T_T. Pretty ignorant post. If your laptop is decent enough to run d3, and you are such an on the go guy that its going to be your main play style, then get wireless internet card. edit : why do i keep replying to the trolls -_- people really can't think like this Are you calling me a troll? I only really use my Laptop on the go for a hour a day. I cannot justify getting a portable internet access card for 15$+ a month when I don't use it all that often. But you can justify blizzard changing all of their code and everything so you can play offline? The difficulty of changing code isn't even the thing Blizzard wants to prevent, it's ruining the community and economy. It isn't about the benefits outweighing the costs though you are on the right track. Since they have to spend less time programming by not programming a single player into the game they actually save money while making sure that everyone buys their game. I really don't see many people playing offline anyway. Perhaps there are more than I think, but all 5 of them are out of luck. You think they aren't making single player to save money. Time for another break from this thread. You misunderstood what I wrote, so I will dumb it down. Not making single player saves them money. Not making single player also makes them money. Win and Win for Blizzard.
You didn't need to dumb it down anymore considering how bad of a point it was, but I'll rephrase too. You think they aren't making single player to save and make money. Time for another break from this thread.
Seriously of all the statements based around online-only, saying it was a financially-based move is the worst of the batch.
|
On August 14 2011 13:28 iCanada wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 13:25 StinkyBoots wrote:One question I jsut thought of, will you start in Hardcore or Softcore right away? Probably have to unlock Hardcore, unless you're talking about Path of Exile. Why would you have to unlock Hardcore? As an avid HC player, that would be stupid. -.-
Uhhh... the same thing was required in Diablo 2?
|
On August 14 2011 13:28 iCanada wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 13:25 StinkyBoots wrote:One question I jsut thought of, will you start in Hardcore or Softcore right away? Probably have to unlock Hardcore, unless you're talking about Path of Exile. Why would you have to unlock Hardcore? As an avid HC player, that would be stupid. -.-
Taking five seconds to think about the question, you may realize that there would be a lot of people who are pseudo-hardcore that would start in that mode, die at the new version of Duriel, and stop playing the game. Just as important is the fact that HC players don't mind about having to make one extra playthrough of the thousand they plan on running.
|
Wait... I recall being able to be HxC right from the start? I just wanna play *drool*
|
On August 14 2011 13:30 NotJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 12:49 NoobSkills wrote:On August 13 2011 18:56 NotJack wrote:On August 13 2011 17:43 NoobSkills wrote:On August 13 2011 17:34 NotJack wrote:On August 13 2011 17:24 Serpico wrote:On August 13 2011 17:21 NotJack wrote:On August 13 2011 17:15 maartendq wrote:On August 13 2011 16:57 NotJack wrote:
There's enough info and controversy based around the always-online debate to provide about four good posts, all of which have been rehashed hundreds of times.
You're all special, smart snowflakes, but your argument that more than .1% of people have bad int or some people just want offline singleplayer or some people want to lan or the idea that you're not going to buy the game don't change the fact that D3 not only should be always-online, but HAS to in order to keep a fair environment and maintain a healthy economy. You really need to understand this; SC2 didn't require online-only to be as great a game as Blizzard wants, D3 does.
Don't be shocked when people who have been participating in this thread are being condescending to you, your laziness and refusal to be informed/less stubborn has brought this thread to a halt, spinning around in a mindless, discussion-less vortex of people playing pattycake with poor ideas.
You can read this post and get mad like most mindless people do when they have no arguments to stand on, or you can just take a nice fresh breath of air and talk about something besides how Jay Wilson is the new Dark Wanderer because he's forcing you to stay online to enjoy a game we've all been excited about for years. In all honesty, I don't care about a good economy when I'm soloing. It's just not important. Yes, nerd apathy is a very common argument because you don't need to prove the point since it's opinion. Unfortunately it's not a good point because all these selfish people can't seem to understand that Blizzard is making a game for more than you, and want to make the best game possible for everyone. The argument isn't what you want that's not there, it's what should be there to make it best for all. Or they just want to try and stop piracy and in turn punish legit customers who want single player. I dont get the excuse making for cutting out features. As has been said in many, many posts, including the one you're quoting, they did it because the benefits outweighed the costs. I don't want to think there's a mental gap in this discussion but I'm being left with little other conclusions. On August 13 2011 17:29 TheGreenMachine wrote:On August 13 2011 17:18 Barett wrote:On August 13 2011 14:54 Pufftrees wrote:On August 13 2011 14:51 Barett wrote:On August 13 2011 14:29 Pufftrees wrote:
There is no offline play, why would there be? Everyone has internet, you can still play single player. The benefits of online only play greatly outweight the 0.01 percent where your internet goes down and you still want to play. What about people like me who were looking forward to playing on the go on my Laptop? Now that is not possible T_T. Pretty ignorant post. If your laptop is decent enough to run d3, and you are such an on the go guy that its going to be your main play style, then get wireless internet card. edit : why do i keep replying to the trolls -_- people really can't think like this Are you calling me a troll? I only really use my Laptop on the go for a hour a day. I cannot justify getting a portable internet access card for 15$+ a month when I don't use it all that often. But you can justify blizzard changing all of their code and everything so you can play offline? The difficulty of changing code isn't even the thing Blizzard wants to prevent, it's ruining the community and economy. It isn't about the benefits outweighing the costs though you are on the right track. Since they have to spend less time programming by not programming a single player into the game they actually save money while making sure that everyone buys their game. I really don't see many people playing offline anyway. Perhaps there are more than I think, but all 5 of them are out of luck. You think they aren't making single player to save money. Time for another break from this thread. You misunderstood what I wrote, so I will dumb it down. Not making single player saves them money. Not making single player also makes them money. Win and Win for Blizzard. You didn't need to dumb it down anymore considering how bad of a point it was, but I'll rephrase too. You think they aren't making single player to save and make money. Time for another break from this thread. Seriously of all the statements based around online-only, saying it was a financially-based move is the worst of the batch.
You actually aren't understanding this argument. The fact that there's no single-player means that players will be REQUIRED TO, no matter the circumstances, to connect to the game. They save money because this means that anyone who wants to play the game, will have to pay for it no matter what, instead of just pirating it.
Eventually, Diablo 3 will be pirated, but it's going to take awhile. So what Blizzard has done is forced people who were planning on stealing the game via piracy, to think if they actually want to wait a few months (or longer or shorter) to play the game, or just buy the game when it comes out because they don't want to wait.
So basically, for those people who were going to pirate the game, but now are deciding "Hmmm... maybe I'll just buy it instead" which then gives Blizzard more sales on their game.
The production of a single player mode itself is not going to cost them really anymore money, because I'm sure it's a simple implementation for them to do.
|
There will still be 'offline' mode if you cannot connect to the internet. It will function like, and be pirated, in the same fashion SC2 is/was
|
On August 14 2011 13:36 hoby2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2011 13:30 NotJack wrote:On August 14 2011 12:49 NoobSkills wrote:On August 13 2011 18:56 NotJack wrote:On August 13 2011 17:43 NoobSkills wrote:On August 13 2011 17:34 NotJack wrote:On August 13 2011 17:24 Serpico wrote:On August 13 2011 17:21 NotJack wrote:On August 13 2011 17:15 maartendq wrote:On August 13 2011 16:57 NotJack wrote:
There's enough info and controversy based around the always-online debate to provide about four good posts, all of which have been rehashed hundreds of times.
You're all special, smart snowflakes, but your argument that more than .1% of people have bad int or some people just want offline singleplayer or some people want to lan or the idea that you're not going to buy the game don't change the fact that D3 not only should be always-online, but HAS to in order to keep a fair environment and maintain a healthy economy. You really need to understand this; SC2 didn't require online-only to be as great a game as Blizzard wants, D3 does.
Don't be shocked when people who have been participating in this thread are being condescending to you, your laziness and refusal to be informed/less stubborn has brought this thread to a halt, spinning around in a mindless, discussion-less vortex of people playing pattycake with poor ideas.
You can read this post and get mad like most mindless people do when they have no arguments to stand on, or you can just take a nice fresh breath of air and talk about something besides how Jay Wilson is the new Dark Wanderer because he's forcing you to stay online to enjoy a game we've all been excited about for years. In all honesty, I don't care about a good economy when I'm soloing. It's just not important. Yes, nerd apathy is a very common argument because you don't need to prove the point since it's opinion. Unfortunately it's not a good point because all these selfish people can't seem to understand that Blizzard is making a game for more than you, and want to make the best game possible for everyone. The argument isn't what you want that's not there, it's what should be there to make it best for all. Or they just want to try and stop piracy and in turn punish legit customers who want single player. I dont get the excuse making for cutting out features. As has been said in many, many posts, including the one you're quoting, they did it because the benefits outweighed the costs. I don't want to think there's a mental gap in this discussion but I'm being left with little other conclusions. On August 13 2011 17:29 TheGreenMachine wrote:On August 13 2011 17:18 Barett wrote:On August 13 2011 14:54 Pufftrees wrote:On August 13 2011 14:51 Barett wrote:
[quote]
What about people like me who were looking forward to playing on the go on my Laptop? Now that is not possible T_T. Pretty ignorant post. If your laptop is decent enough to run d3, and you are such an on the go guy that its going to be your main play style, then get wireless internet card. edit : why do i keep replying to the trolls -_- people really can't think like this Are you calling me a troll? I only really use my Laptop on the go for a hour a day. I cannot justify getting a portable internet access card for 15$+ a month when I don't use it all that often. But you can justify blizzard changing all of their code and everything so you can play offline? The difficulty of changing code isn't even the thing Blizzard wants to prevent, it's ruining the community and economy. It isn't about the benefits outweighing the costs though you are on the right track. Since they have to spend less time programming by not programming a single player into the game they actually save money while making sure that everyone buys their game. I really don't see many people playing offline anyway. Perhaps there are more than I think, but all 5 of them are out of luck. You think they aren't making single player to save money. Time for another break from this thread. You misunderstood what I wrote, so I will dumb it down. Not making single player saves them money. Not making single player also makes them money. Win and Win for Blizzard. You didn't need to dumb it down anymore considering how bad of a point it was, but I'll rephrase too. You think they aren't making single player to save and make money. Time for another break from this thread. Seriously of all the statements based around online-only, saying it was a financially-based move is the worst of the batch. You actually aren't understanding this argument. The fact that there's no single-player means that players will be REQUIRED TO, no matter the circumstances, to connect to the game. They save money because this means that anyone who wants to play the game, will have to pay for it no matter what, instead of just pirating it. Eventually, Diablo 3 will be pirated, but it's going to take awhile. So what Blizzard has done is forced people who were planning on stealing the game via piracy, to think if they actually want to wait a few months (or longer or shorter) to play the game, or just buy the game when it comes out because they don't want to wait. So basically, for those people who were going to pirate the game, but now are deciding "Hmmm... maybe I'll just buy it instead" which then gives Blizzard more sales on their game. The production of a single player mode itself is not going to cost them really anymore money, because I'm sure it's a simple implementation for them to do.
I don't know how you think I miscomprehended such an elementary point. Of course every improvement to the game can be said to help financially, and they have incentive to reduce pirating, but anyone who makes this point is ignoring the other 20 benefits of online-only, to the players, the developers, and the growth of games.
|
I know we discussed the graphics already, but I sorta want to bring it up again. So far I'm liking the new graphics. Sure it isn't the whole gloomy/depressing atmosphere that D1 has, but it has it's perks. I think D3 has amazing potential for spectacular graphics, but with a few noticeable flaws. Here's two screenshots that I really like, and one that I don't.
Here's a familiar scene. Remember the fields of D2 act 1 with gnarling trees, run down houses, and hordes of fallen? Bring me nostalgia looking at it in D3. I must say it looks quite nice
![[image loading]](http://diablo.incgamers.com/gallery/data/560/medium/ss86-hires.jpg)
This guy's no butcher, but he still looks pretty bad ass
![[image loading]](http://diablo.incgamers.com/gallery/data/560/medium/Thousand_Pounder_summoned.jpg)
Now here's a screenshot that I didn't quite like. The blue nova looks really out of place, kind of like a giant splash of kool-aid. I guess you can say it really cockblocks the whole atmosphere. Maybe it doesn't bother other people as much, but personally, I wouldn't be using this skill.
![[image loading]](http://diablo.incgamers.com/gallery/data/561/medium/ss154-hires.jpg)
What do you guys think?
|
On August 14 2011 13:42 Warpath wrote:
There will still be 'offline' mode if you cannot connect to the internet. It will function like, and be pirated, in the same fashion SC2 is/was
unless you can provide a source contradicting every other blizzard post, there will be no offline mode
also: the monk looked highly conceptual at reveal, i'm certain none of his abilities will be so...cinematic and unfinished in retail. same with anything else that doesnt match. but yeah, the blue splash is really bad.
|
Loving those first 2 screenies, the third really turns me off with that blue... agree with you 100 percent. Even if that rune+move combo was overpowered I just wouldn't use it... looks like it belongs in the My Lil Pony thread.
|
On August 14 2011 13:36 hoby2000 wrote:
You actually aren't understanding this argument. The fact that there's no single-player means that players will be REQUIRED TO, no matter the circumstances, to connect to the game. They save money because this means that anyone who wants to play the game, will have to pay for it no matter what, instead of just pirating it.
Eventually, Diablo 3 will be pirated, but it's going to take awhile. So what Blizzard has done is forced people who were planning on stealing the game via piracy, to think if they actually want to wait a few months (or longer or shorter) to play the game, or just buy the game when it comes out because they don't want to wait.
So basically, for those people who were going to pirate the game, but now are deciding "Hmmm... maybe I'll just buy it instead" which then gives Blizzard more sales on their game.
The production of a single player mode itself is not going to cost them really anymore money, because I'm sure it's a simple implementation for them to do.
Your argument is somewhat different though. The previous poster's argument is that Blizzard is cutting off features just to save money, which really isn't the case since single-player would actually be very cheap to implement. Your argument is more along the lines of "Blizzard is cutting features to stop pirating", which may or may not be true. The reason why is because many people are actually being shut out from Diablo 3 because they have no reliable internet connection, so there's no guarantee that pirates are just going to give in and buy the game because we have no way of knowing whether they are able to play.
I find it pointless to push the notion of "Blizzard is just doing this for money", because what Blizzard is doing has just as much potential to lose customers as it is to gain. We really don't know the numbers of how many pirates will give in and buy, nor do we know how many players are unable to play D3 due to lack of reliable internet. This is mainly just about Blizzard using a different business model which, like all models, has its pros and cons.
|
In all the reports of people playing the game, they dispel the ideas that the game is too cartoony and say it's darker than D2 in a many areas. I did think the slow motion bubble looked kind of out of place though.
|
I mean, its just a still screen of a single skill in a particular environment. Obviously have to wait till you see it used in difference settings before you black list it.
Does look like a skill graphic destined for change though..
I particularly don't like the fatty jumping around... looks a bit stupid IMO buh wha6tevs
|
On August 14 2011 13:58 Puph wrote:
I particularly don't like the fatty jumping around... looks a bit stupid IMO buh wha6tevs
If I woke up one night and saw a bunny rabbit with a fat guy's body carry 2 giant maces hovering over my bed, I'd shit my pants right away.
|
On August 14 2011 13:45 Chairman Ray wrote:Now here's a screenshot that I didn't quite like. The blue nova looks really out of place, kind of like a giant splash of kool-aid. I guess you can say it really cockblocks the whole atmosphere. Maybe it doesn't bother other people as much, but personally, I wouldn't be using this skill. What do you guys think?
I agree here. Looks really goofy.
|
All you guys are arguing but... I just hope I will be able to run the game! Haha. ;/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
