Thoughts on Diablo III?

[MobBoss]

I traded stuff in D2. Lots of stuff to friends that were trying to complete item sets.

The online thing doesnt bother me that much for the simple reason my PC that i'm going to play this on is connected 24/7 regardless with a very, very stable connection. I dont play games while traveling as I'm either doing work stuff or using the trip as a chance to unplug and do something else for a change.

The great thing about this is anticipation for this game has made my circle of real life friends actually re-install D2 and begin playing it again. Graphics are now terrible dated, but still fun stuff.

 

[MoonFlare]

I've got a feeling that blizzard is the next target for DDOS and hacker attacks. Ubisoft got a few for their crap. And it's the same situation here.

 

[Rub'Rum]

The great thing about this is anticipation for this game has made my circle of real life friends actually re-install D2 and begin playing it again. Graphics are now terrible dated, but still fun stuff.

The graphics in D2 are only bad because of today's huge flat screen HD monitors, and the inability of newer cards to make OpenGL look good or work at all. Diablo 2 actually did look better when you played it on your older computer with an old style 17 inch monitor, I swear.

 

[MobBoss]

I dont disagree.

 

[Maniacal]

I don't have worries about the solidity of connections. I do hope the game will be slightly lenient when connections drop a bit. What I'm concerned about is how the industry overrates the availability of affordable wi-fi and whatnot. If I want to play on my laptop, I have to be online, but wi-fi isn't everywhere. In 2011 I still have problems having free or affordable internet access when I travel around with my laptop. It's BS, his attitude about this is the typical arrogant urban attitude which spells out "I need to get out of my house/work city area a bit".

As for Diablo being a circle trading game. Well he's wrong. Maybe D3 will be focused on trading a lot more than the previous games, but they weren't "trading games". I don't think I ever traded anything in D2. I'll probably want to trade a bit in D3, but I like the "play with what I get as drops" philosophy, I never quite liked the idea of counting on trade to make the perfect "build" I found online which specifies I need armor X and weapon Y. Equipping random stuff, optimizing my loot, etc. That was the fun part. We'll see if D3 somehow makes me want to trade.

I highly doubt that the people who were involved in more than a few trades (if they did any at all) in D2 are a minority at best of the players, but they are probably a very vocal minority giving Blizzard a disproportionate impression. I don't recall anyone I know who played D2 as a kid talking about trading, but then again all we had was dial up.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Come to think of it, random drop trading game always online? Sounds like TF2, mehe.

 

[Maniacal]

The thing is, you can play TF2 offline. It has bots, no idea about LAN but I bet you can do that somehow.

 

[Rub'Rum]

You're right. Most people did buy TF2 to play with the obscure bots function and have huge LAN parties with 3 guys in the basement. That's what I did!

EDIT: The bots were really impressed by my hats collection.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I have been looking forward to Diablo 3 for a long time and this "must be online to play" is a terrible blow.

I like to play alone much of the time and don't really care about trading. I played over the internet with my son and his friends sometimes, and those multi player games are fun, but I would hate to have to play in any world populated by folks I don't know.

 

[MobBoss]

The thing is, you can play TF2 offline. It has bots, no idea about LAN but I bet you can do that somehow.

Yeah, but....who does that? Doesnt sound very fun in comparison to the online play.

I have been looking forward to Diablo 3 for a long time and this "must be online to play" is a terrible blow.

I like to play alone much of the time and don't really care about trading. I played over the internet with my son and his friends sometimes, and those multi player games are fun, but I would hate to have to play in any world populated by folks I don't know.

I'm pretty sure you wont have to play with people you dont know (unless you would want to of course), and should be able to create games for your son and his friends just like previously. In fact, I would be shocked it if were otherwise.

 

[Maniacal]

You're right. Most people did buy TF2 to play with the obscure bots function and have huge LAN parties with 3 guys in the basement. That's what I did!

I can't tell if you're just being sarcastic or trying to make a point through sarcasm. I was trying to do that too.

EDIT: The bots were really impressed by my hats collection.

They have none and are poor, and french Irish.

 

[Akka]

I don't have [...] to trade.

No need to bother to argue for or against the reasons given, it's pretty obvious they are only pretexts. Both are simply means to get more money, and have absolutely zero relationship with the game itself.

But as long as people will bend over and let themselve be happily be [censored], why should they bother to respect them ?

I've got a feeling that blizzard is the next target for DDOS and hacker attacks. Ubisoft got a few for their crap. And it's the same situation here.

Except that Blizzard is actually extremely competent at what they are doing, so I highly doubt that it will be as easy to take down as Ubisoft. Though it could be quite fun.

 

[MoonFlare]

Except that Blizzard is actually extremely competent at what they are doing, so I highly doubt that it will be as easy to take down as Ubisoft. Though it could be quite fun.

They're looking for trouble. Remeber the REAL ID thing for WoW? They got hacked fast for that.

 

[Arakhor]

Oh well. I was only a casual online player of DII, so this is another game I won't be buying. Companies become more and more obsessed with security and always overlook the fact that anyone who wants to hack their games will do so. It's the paying customer that gets stiffed, not the hacker.

 

[MobBoss]

Oh well. I was only a casual online player of DII, so this is another game I won't be buying. Companies become more and more obsessed with security and always overlook the fact that anyone who wants to hack their games will do so. It's the paying customer that gets stiffed, not the hacker.

This is only if the steps taken to cut down/help prevent hacking are unreasonable and have a hugely detrimental affect on the paying customer. I dont see that being the case here.

 

[aelf]

I think it's the attitude of the developers that really leaves something to be desired. The fact that they are condescending and slightly combative about their decisions should make you wonder what they think of their customers. I'd rather not reward such an attitude.

 

[SuperJay]

I think "contempt" is a good way to describe it.

In one recent interview (I can't find it now), a Blizzard VP tried to defend the no-offline-ever decision by likening D3 to WoW. He seriously said something to the effect of "well, this was never a problem with World of Warcraft."

Uhhh, what?? Did you really just claim that WoW and D3 are the same kind of game? Of course an MMORPG requires a constant connection, that's what the "O" stands for, and everyone who buys one knows what they're getting. Diablo was not an online game, but Blizzard is making it one unnecessarily.

I still don't know whether that VP was an idiot, or whether he thinks us players are idiots. One of these things must be true for him to make a comment like that in an interview.

 

[MobBoss]

I think it's the attitude of the developers that really leaves something to be desired. The fact that they are condescending and slightly combative about their decisions should make you wonder what they think of their customers. I'd rather not reward such an attitude.

I dont care about corporate attitudes, I care whether the games they make are good or not.

And fwiw, Diablo 2 was indeed an 'online' game if you in any way desired to play it with your friends (which is probably how the vast majority actually played it). Its just a given that in todays multi-player world any game with multi-player is going to require an online connection.

 

[aelf]

I dont care about corporate attitudes, I care whether the games they make are good or not.

Eh, corporate attitudes are not divorced from the quality and pricing of their products. Think about it this way: The fact that a business feels at liberty to display contempt for its customers means that it has a significant and safe market share, which will only grow with continued success. And it seems rather naive to trust that a business with monopolistic power would care about the the quality of their products.

But I know you don't care about this, so it's a waste of breath trying to convince you anyway. As I said before, there will always be fanboys.

 

[MobBoss]

Eh, corporate attitudes are not divorced from the quality and pricing of their products.

No where near true in all cases. Thats why I tend to use the games actual quality as a final arbiter, not whether the corporate head wants to act the ass.

Think about it this way: The fact that a business feels at liberty to display contempt for its customers means that it has a significant and safe market share, which will only grow with continued success. And it seems rather naive to trust that a business with monopolistic power would care about the the quality of their products.

Define 'contempt' however. Is the expectation of having an online connection for a game showing 'contempt'? I dont think so. I dont think that is an entirely unreasonable expectation either.

And come on, we are talking the video games industry - no one has 'monopolistic' power here, and competition to create quality games that sell is quite intense.

But I know you don't care about this, so it's a waste of breath trying to convince you anyway. As I said before, there will always be fanboys.

True, and there will always be haters as well.