|
On July 13 2012 10:21 Djzapz wrote:This game is the biggest disappointment I've had since SC2. In fact it's worse
I actually didnt buy D3 cause I tought SC2 was terrible, primarilly because of a lot of features that were missing from BNet. I couldnt believe Blizzard would actually release a product so unfinished like SC2, then when people in D3 beta started saying D3 BNet is even worse, I was like wtf is goin on with Blizz? It was very obvious this was not the company it used to be.
SC2 was the game that made me not buy any more Blizz products and I cant say Im sorry.
|
I agree with a majority if your points. Tbh I sorta wish blizzard took another year polishing up d3 before releasing it. It's just been a major let down tbh.
|
On July 14 2012 08:30 Staboteur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 09:09 strongwind wrote:On July 12 2012 11:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:I beat the game today. I was undergeared for it, but I beat the game. And that basically summarizes my attitude towards D3. I would never say I beat Diablo 2, or Guild Wars, or Titan Quest (all of which I've played recently in the last 2 years). But everything in Diablo 3 basically told me that Inferno was all that mattered, and the gear I was getting was solely for the purpose of beating Diablo 3. And then it told me that it would be faster to zerg my way through Act 3 and Act 4 than it would be to actually get the gear necessary to do it "properly". And now that I've beaten Inferno...there's really nothing else I feel like doing in the game. And the worst part is, it doesn't feel like an accomplishment. Killing Diablo in Inferno was basically my way of closing the book, putting it down and choosing never to touch it again. So yeah, that's it then. I beat the game. On July 12 2012 11:32 kastoob wrote: So because Blizzard has a good track record, it comes back to bite them. Blizzard needs to make a game 100x better than a bioware game, yet still charge the same amount, in order for it to be called good, else its utter trash? It's not ok for a 60 dollar game to only be enjoyed for up to 100 or so hours just because blizzard made it? People need to understand that $60 is a lot for a PC game nowadays, considering Steam is giving 75% sales on a regular basis. There are very, very few games that I would ever buy on release day, and Blizzard used to be a company that would warrant immediate purchase. This isn't just some company putting out a mediocre game. This is a company losing the years and years of trust and good faith that it earned from its customers. Diablo 3 pre-sold record numbers of copies because everyone "knew" it would be an all-time classic. And they were wrong. Diablo 3 will eventually smooth itself out and become a decent game for a $30 purchase in several months. But Blizzard basically lost its reputation as one of the few companies that wouldn't release a game until it was awesome and it was ready. And that reputation was worth record pre-sales. Agree with this completely. A lot of you guys are getting caught up with the 500 hour thing. The problem is that you're comparing a Blizzard game to every other game out there right now. That's not what made Blizzard famous. For past Blizzard games, 500 hours was a drop in the bucket. Yes, expectations were extremely high, maybe unrealistically so, but that's what we've come to expect from this company. It's why I've personally held them in higher regard than almost any other gaming company. I think what this means for me is that future Blizz games will not be an insta-buy anymore. I'll have to do what everyone does with other game purchases: determine if it's worth the bang for my buck. Sadness. + Show Spoiler +Three feelings come to mind as I read this:
$60 is not a lot for a PC game nowadays, at least not one with a single-player length of over 50 hours AS WELL AS functional online play that allows for theoretically infinite playtime, even if not through the strength of the game itself as much as doing shit with friends. As evidence that $60 is not a lot for a game, consider the amount of people that were willing to pay for all the expansions of WoW as well as the monthly fee... or consider how many people were willing to not only spend $60 for Diablo 3, but then also $60 for a single piece of gear in D3 (Personally, I sold things to three of them and had only put 150 hours into the game...) or consider how a lot of these $60 games will still sell more copies than their cheaper counterparts, implying that the masses believe they're worth their cost. Until we as a gaming community don't believe games are worth $60, they'll be worth $60... and honestly, it seems like dev times for games just keep going up and up, so I can't see this trend changing all that soon.
You did not play any non-bnet blizzard game for more than 500 hours. I'll still consider Diablo 1 faaar superior to Diablo 2 in terms of game design and flow (though the change in pacing in games makes it feel terribly slow these days) but what carried Diablo 2 was not solely its strength in design so much as its multiplayer/online accessibility at the beginning of an era that was starting to discover the strength of multiplayer games. It was a -good- game made great by the community that embraced it, not a great game from the get-go. To say that for past blizzard games 500 hours was a drop in the bucket makes me feel like you're only including Diablo 2 (as a D2 fanboy) and Starcraft in the list of games blizzard made AND are considering a "drop in the bucket" to constitute 75% at the very least of the time spent playing the game.
Thirdly, name a game that succeeded where D3 has failed. There's a lot of hype coming out for Torchlight 2, and I'd love to see them carry the torch (sorry :D) of ARPGs to a place it hasn't been before (that embraces today's standards of online multiplay rather than relying on a strength it doesn't have)... and while I agree that it is somewhat saddening to see blizzard fail to carry on their trend of genre innovation I don't think it's fair to condemn them for also failing where no-one else has succeeded.
I agree that D3 was nowhere near the innovative recreation of ARPGs that I was expecting from a Blizzard product. However, I can't relate to considering it a failure big enough to reduce my belief that they're still capable of pushing certain genres beyond their bounds.
Good points made here Sab.
|
That point made by sab is pretty moot. I think most people here hold Blizzard to a completely other standard. just like people hold the quality of in-n-out burgers, over the quality of mcdonald's.
Sure a sub-par blizzard game maybe better than majority of games overall, doesn't make our disappointment in our expectations moot.
|
On July 25 2012 05:12 wei2coolman wrote: That point made by sab is pretty moot. I think most people here hold Blizzard to a completely other standard. just like people hold the quality of in-n-out burgers, over the quality of mcdonald's.
Sure a sub-par blizzard game maybe better than majority of games overall, doesn't make our disappointment in our expectations moot.
Plus you have to factor in the "when is ready" BS....they tease, announce shit years in advance and tell us "well the game is cool right now, but we are blizzard and will only release it when its ready " and we, devoted fans, get even more excited..yup blizzard will deliver and it will be awesome just at the price of a little (f*cking years!!!!!!!!!) wait. Then we get this....
SC2 walked the same path, although the disapointment was a little bit smaller but then you have things like "yeah this game will be split in 3 parts....but they will be 3 epic parts!!!! Just give us some time and you'll have 2 expansions that are just like a full game". After a while..."yeah well people (who?! not your actual fans to whom you told to be making the decision for) thought our campaign was a little bit long so the others will be smaller (just like they were going to be before the split decision)"...still 2+ years after the first one, there is no expansion in sight. By the time the second expansion comes out, my kids will be playing it?! At this point I think we're actually spending more time getting hyped over nothing than actually playing the freaking game....D3 was that for me....SC2 was that and even double or triple for me (despite me enjoying seeing pros play...i dont actually play the game =/ ).
Im sorry for my rant and if it was hard to read. I just realized that my english suffers a lot when Im venting.
|
On July 14 2012 08:30 Staboteur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 09:09 strongwind wrote:On July 12 2012 11:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:I beat the game today. I was undergeared for it, but I beat the game. And that basically summarizes my attitude towards D3. I would never say I beat Diablo 2, or Guild Wars, or Titan Quest (all of which I've played recently in the last 2 years). But everything in Diablo 3 basically told me that Inferno was all that mattered, and the gear I was getting was solely for the purpose of beating Diablo 3. And then it told me that it would be faster to zerg my way through Act 3 and Act 4 than it would be to actually get the gear necessary to do it "properly". And now that I've beaten Inferno...there's really nothing else I feel like doing in the game. And the worst part is, it doesn't feel like an accomplishment. Killing Diablo in Inferno was basically my way of closing the book, putting it down and choosing never to touch it again. So yeah, that's it then. I beat the game. On July 12 2012 11:32 kastoob wrote: So because Blizzard has a good track record, it comes back to bite them. Blizzard needs to make a game 100x better than a bioware game, yet still charge the same amount, in order for it to be called good, else its utter trash? It's not ok for a 60 dollar game to only be enjoyed for up to 100 or so hours just because blizzard made it? People need to understand that $60 is a lot for a PC game nowadays, considering Steam is giving 75% sales on a regular basis. There are very, very few games that I would ever buy on release day, and Blizzard used to be a company that would warrant immediate purchase. This isn't just some company putting out a mediocre game. This is a company losing the years and years of trust and good faith that it earned from its customers. Diablo 3 pre-sold record numbers of copies because everyone "knew" it would be an all-time classic. And they were wrong. Diablo 3 will eventually smooth itself out and become a decent game for a $30 purchase in several months. But Blizzard basically lost its reputation as one of the few companies that wouldn't release a game until it was awesome and it was ready. And that reputation was worth record pre-sales. Agree with this completely. A lot of you guys are getting caught up with the 500 hour thing. The problem is that you're comparing a Blizzard game to every other game out there right now. That's not what made Blizzard famous. For past Blizzard games, 500 hours was a drop in the bucket. Yes, expectations were extremely high, maybe unrealistically so, but that's what we've come to expect from this company. It's why I've personally held them in higher regard than almost any other gaming company. I think what this means for me is that future Blizz games will not be an insta-buy anymore. I'll have to do what everyone does with other game purchases: determine if it's worth the bang for my buck. Sadness. Three feelings come to mind as I read this: $60 is not a lot for a PC game nowadays, at least not one with a single-player length of over 50 hours AS WELL AS functional online play that allows for theoretically infinite playtime, even if not through the strength of the game itself as much as doing shit with friends. As evidence that $60 is not a lot for a game, consider the amount of people that were willing to pay for all the expansions of WoW as well as the monthly fee... or consider how many people were willing to not only spend $60 for Diablo 3, but then also $60 for a single piece of gear in D3 (Personally, I sold things to three of them and had only put 150 hours into the game...) or consider how a lot of these $60 games will still sell more copies than their cheaper counterparts, implying that the masses believe they're worth their cost. Until we as a gaming community don't believe games are worth $60, they'll be worth $60... and honestly, it seems like dev times for games just keep going up and up, so I can't see this trend changing all that soon. You did not play any non-bnet blizzard game for more than 500 hours. I'll still consider Diablo 1 faaar superior to Diablo 2 in terms of game design and flow (though the change in pacing in games makes it feel terribly slow these days) but what carried Diablo 2 was not solely its strength in design so much as its multiplayer/online accessibility at the beginning of an era that was starting to discover the strength of multiplayer games. It was a -good- game made great by the community that embraced it, not a great game from the get-go. To say that for past blizzard games 500 hours was a drop in the bucket makes me feel like you're only including Diablo 2 (as a D2 fanboy) and Starcraft in the list of games blizzard made AND are considering a "drop in the bucket" to constitute 75% at the very least of the time spent playing the game. Thirdly, name a game that succeeded where D3 has failed. There's a lot of hype coming out for Torchlight 2, and I'd love to see them carry the torch (sorry :D) of ARPGs to a place it hasn't been before (that embraces today's standards of online multiplay rather than relying on a strength it doesn't have)... and while I agree that it is somewhat saddening to see blizzard fail to carry on their trend of genre innovation I don't think it's fair to condemn them for also failing where no-one else has succeeded. I agree that D3 was nowhere near the innovative recreation of ARPGs that I was expecting from a Blizzard product. However, I can't relate to considering it a failure big enough to reduce my belief that they're still capable of pushing certain genres beyond their bounds. I'm not arguing about the price point, because to me 60 bucks isn't all that much, especially for a Blizzard game. What I do expect is that when Blizzard releases a game, whatever the price, that it is worthy of the reputation of the game it succeeds. This is a tall order, of course, but one that Blizzard has said itself it would strive to meet. That is why I've diligently waited for years for the next installment of each franchise (of which there are only three). That is why I've held Blizzard in higher regard than the others. Because when something is finally released, after years of waiting, my expectations are that they would set the standard for what games could and should be. That's what made Blizzard set apart. If they choose to change that philosophy, so be it, but my view of them goes with it.
I've played D1, D2, Starcraft, and Frozen Throne/Dota for well over 500 hours each. (Never got into WoW, but I won't deny its sustainability). What you said is true: community involvement was huge in keeping each game sustainable, but I don't see how that detracts from my statement. Of course I can't forecast how D3 will play out in the future, but just hearing the responses from the community is telling of where this game is headed. Most people that drop games nowadays don't come back; there are so many options to choose from now. And the way Blizz has handled everything just shows me that things are not the way they were anymore.
Like I said, I know expectations were extraordinarily high for this game. But giving it a pass because nothing better has come around is inexcusable to me. Blizz games have never settled for just being slightly better than the rest. I'll temper my expectations for the future, and I am really looking forward to Torchlight 2. As usual, we'll see how it all goes ^^
|
The anticipation and expectation for diablo 3 vs the reality of what it turned out to be can only be compared to taking a really attractive big breasted slutty woman home from the bar only to find out she's a DUDE!
|
Perhaps they lauch the game too fast or they are running out off ideas because the game sucks big time :| And for the price they sell the game MY GOD. Blizzard are becoming a bunch of leeches. They saw the amount of people who wanted to buy the game and lost the way. I think it was greed.
|
The price wasn't outrageous.... I dunno how people get this idea? 60 dollars has been industry average for a while... and not to mention Warcraft 3 was like 80 dollars on release when it first came out. The only greedy part on Blizzards part was to have the game released before it was done to Blizzards usual standard of quality.
|
On July 25 2012 06:35 wei2coolman wrote: The price wasn't outrageous.... I dunno how people get this idea? 60 dollars has been industry average for a while... and not to mention Warcraft 3 was like 80 dollars on release when it first came out. The only greedy part on Blizzards part was to have the game released before it was done to Blizzards usual standard of quality.
Here's the thing though, it doesn't feel like 60 dollars for a game. It feels like 60 dollars for a third of the game that they deliberatley broke into pieces to sell it to us piecemeal. Then they take it a step further and actually remove a bunch of features (from D2 to D3) that I am almost willing to bet they will be selling back to us as expansion features....just like they are doing with sc2.
I miss the blizzard that would just work hard as shit putting out a badass game that was complete on its own. Then a year or 2 down the line you would hear whispers of an expansion and everyone would just flip out. Now it's turned into this franchise that we are expecting the game to be this fucking "on going" project that's been sectioned off in such a way as to garauntee maximum profit.
|
On July 25 2012 06:04 Leth0 wrote: The anticipation and expectation for diablo 3 vs the reality of what it turned out to be can only be compared to taking a really attractive big breasted slutty woman home from the bar only to find out she's a DUDE!
Well to be fair, a couple adjustments and surgeries(fixes and patches) she should be what you expected, amirite?
|
$60 isn't a big deal, not sure why some ppl would complaint about that. It's just the game really sucks right now. Market is dead, drop rates is worst than my poops, so boring and no real goal other than farming.
|
|
|
|