Thoughts on Diablo III?

[MobBoss]

The quote I provided makes a fairly convincing argument. Feel free to tear it apart piece by piece if you like rather than just ignoring it.

I posted my comment prior to you putting that in. However, I dont find that argument convincing at all. In fact, the logic there also indicates that services like ebay/amazon/craigslist, or any online investing are also 'gambling' if you go with that overly broad definition of the term.

Bottom line, the way I interpreted the RMAH was that Blizz merely skimmed a portion of the transaction as a fee, not a listing fee i.e. the WoW auction house. All of this remains to be seen however, and since the game isnt released yet, to say it 'has' this isnt even remotely correct.....yet.

Regardless, for your point to be convincing at all requires a very overly-broad definition of what gambling actually and normally defined as.

I mean are people really seriously worried about that? If so, they need to unplug and get outside - the odds of that actually happening are so remote as to be nil.

Yeah, we all see it that you don't get it, sadly.

Nebulous comment remains nebulous. If you cant make an actual and factual claim of how the game has been 'slaughtered' then apparently your opinion on that is part of a very small minority indeed. You need to have a better argument that just repeating 'but its been slaughtered man..destroyed' over and over again. Simply doing that with no evidence offered to the contrary is meaningless.

I'm a "gamer" (that is, someone who actually like to PLAY and to have stimulating games, and is not just looking to waste mindlessly some time) and yes I'm quite frustrated that the vast majority of games are dumbed down to align them to the mass of retards for which Facebook's applications were designed.

\

Well, congrats, I'm a gamer too, and also enjoy stimulating games, but I dont enjoy slogging through games that are needlessly complex either. Again, thats too much like work for me.

But I like how you refer to others as 'the mass of retards'. You sure do put yourself on a high pedastal dont you?

It's like having a ton of idiots coming to a chess club, and making it a checker club because chess is "too complicated". Yeah, chess players are going to be pissed off, no sh*t Herlock.

By all means we gotta keep the riff-raff out.

I mean far be it from those chess players maybe teach chess to a few of those checkers players, and get them to enjoy chess as well. Its much more effective to tell those checker players how idiotic they are and gtfo. Well done!

No, I just see that a game that was great has become truly bad (the point you admit yourself you are unable to get), and I know that "success" has little to do with "quality" (the other point you are unable to get, despite several hard examples given to you, that you either completely ignored or attempted to justify with laughable reasoning that blew up in your face).

I just disagree with you that its become 'truly bad'. But yeah, when you said there was no more multiplayer in the game, then countered your own point, you kinda lost me at that point.

Funny fact : in both case, you are the one unable to get the point, not the other way around.

You havent made your point yet. Thats why.

 

[Akka]

Nebulous comment remains nebulous. If you cant make an actual and factual claim of how the game has been 'slaughtered' then apparently your opinion on that is part of a very small minority indeed. You need to have a better argument that just repeating 'but its been slaughtered man..destroyed' over and over again. Simply doing that with no evidence offered to the contrary is meaningless.

I find it tiring to repeat the same argument as I've done for so long in the WoW forums, so just have a look at this post.

Well, congrats, I'm a gamer too, and also enjoy stimulating games, but I dont enjoy slogging through games that are needlessly complex either. Again, thats too much like work for me.

WoW being "needlessly complex" ?
Yeah, what a joke, even at its highest "hardcore" peak, it was still the fricking world benchmark on casuality in the MMO genre. It just went from "fairly casual" to "mind-numbingly ********".

By all means we gotta keep the riff-raff out.

I mean far be it from those chess players maybe teach chess to a few of those checkers players, and get them to enjoy chess as well. Its much more effective to tell those checker players how idiotic they are and gtfo. Well done!

That's just missing the point so hard I'm kind of speechless...

I just disagree with you that its become 'truly bad'. But yeah, when you said there was no more multiplayer in the game, then countered your own point, you kinda lost me at that point.

Let me see...

Oh, right here :

WoW has lost most of its multiplayer interactions, most of its content and nearly all of its meaningful progression to become a mind-numbing rush without any involvement, thought or adventure, filled with "help for dummies" breaking any kind of immersion or depth.
[...]
WoW has lost nearly all its multiplayer component due to "play by clicking one button and be showered with pointless gear" horrid additions (that you celebrate, once again showing how you missed one of the core point of the game).

There is nearly no interaction left between players outside of guilds and some raids today, for the rest they could be replaced by bots in instances (no communication and no challenge) and are simply absent from the rest of the game (everyone crammed in the capitals).
I'm not even going to talk about the nigh complete disappearance of the social network outside guild.

So, you can't manage to get a point.
Seem you also can't manage to simply read.

Seriously, do you even TRY ?

 

[Thormodr]

I posted my comment prior to you putting that in. However, I dont find that argument convincing at all. In fact, the logic there also indicates that services like ebay/amazon/craigslist, or any online investing are also 'gambling' if you go with that overly broad definition of the term.

Bottom line, the way I interpreted the RMAH was that Blizz merely skimmed a portion of the transaction as a fee, not a listing fee i.e. the WoW auction house. All of this remains to be seen however, and since the game isnt released yet, to say it 'has' this isnt even remotely correct.....yet.

Regardless, for your point to be convincing at all requires a very overly-broad definition of what gambling actually and normally defined as.

I mean are people really seriously worried about that? If so, they need to unplug and get outside - the odds of that actually happening are so remote as to be nil.

Not really worried about it per se as I won't be buying the product. It's greed on the part of Activision Blizzard (Robert A Kotick smiles) and it will have a seriously detrimental effect on gameplay.

Bots, hackers and dupers are going to go hog wild with the money being up for grabs.

Also, there will be third party transactions as always. That won't change.

As mentioned before, WoW and it's online only MMO deal did little to stop hackers, bots and dupers and it won't with Diablo III either.

It's just Activision Blizzard trying to cash in on something that they were morally opposed to before. Hard to take them at their word anymore unfortunately.

 

[MobBoss]

WoW being "needlessly complex" ?

Actually, that was a generic comment at best, and earlier I mentioned Master of Orion 3 as an example of that.

Yeah, what a joke, even at its highest "hardcore" peak, it was still the fricking world benchmark on casuality in the MMO genre. It just went from "fairly casual" to "mind-numbingly ********".

Again, thats just your opinion. Mine differs.

That's just missing the point so hard I'm kind of speechless...

I can see how it would. The concept doesnt fit in very well with the elite power gamer image you have going on for yourself.

Seem you also can't manage to simply read.

Again, apparently this is your only 'go to' tactic when you cant make your point.

I read what you wrote and of course I can read. You didnt make your point and seem insistent on just saying the same 'destroyed, blah, blah blah' thing without any actual fact to back it up over and over again. its sad that you have to resort to flinging such insults when your unable to convince others that your opinion is obviously the only correct version of things, but there it is.

I have both anecdotal evidence and factual numbers to indicate that WoW remains a well done and popular game. I remain unconvinced of your claims how its been 'destroyed' by blizzard. The actual evidence just doesnt support your opinion, even though you feel strongly about it.

Not really worried about it per se as I won't be buying the product. It's greed on the part of Activision Blizzard (Robert A Kotick smiles) and it will have a seriously detrimental effect on gameplay.

And thats really the final arbiter of it all: consumers dollars. Either it will succeed or not. Is it greed? Only inasmuch as companies should seek proft on the behalf of their investors. Will it have a serious detrimental effect on gameplay? Obviously not for your average gamer. It could indeed impact PvP at the very highest level, but how many people who buy the game actually play at that level? Very few in comparison.

Bots, hackers and dupers are going to go hog wild with the money being up for grabs.

This has already been a reality in the industry for some time now. The advent of a RMAH isnt going to change it, and in fact, might just downplay the 'chinese gold farmer' mentality by creating a venue for average players to buy/sell items to other average players if they so desire.

Also, there will be third party transactions as always. That won't change.

Sure, but it could result in less impact of those third parties, which is indeed a worthwhile goal to pursue.

As mentioned before, WoW and it's online only MMO deal did little to stop hackers, bots and dupers and it won't with Diablo III either.

There isnt an online multi-player game that doesnt have to deal with this to varying degree, so it is simply NOT a reason to not buy a particular game.

It's just Activision Blizzard trying to cash in on something that they were morally opposed to before. Hard to take them at their word anymore unfortunately.

I'll take them at their word for the simple reason of their track record of making excellent games for the last 20 years. If they release a suck game and break that trust you'll have a point, but until that happens, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[SuperJay]

Well, while that may be true for some, a lot of gamers will simply be transferring that loot off their barbarian and giving it to their mage. One of the great things about Diablo 2 was enjoying the different character classes and seeing how they fit your style of play. I expect D3 to be pretty much the same in that regard.

Of course, people will have alts in D3 just like in every other class-based fantasy RPG. In my experience, though, if you are in a party with other players and you all work together to kill something that drops an item tailored to a specific class in the party, it's considered good form to let that character have that item - after all, it was only the RNG that allocated that magic staff to the Barbarian in the first place. Conversely, it's always (IME) considered bad form to loot that magic staff and claim that kept it because "my alt needs it." That's generally seen as selfish loot-whoring.

Maybe this won't be an issue in D3; maybe it will always award class-appropriate loot to one of the characters who can use that item, so the Barbarian wouldn't get the magic staff in the first place.

Still, if that is not the case, the RMAH provides a heck of an incentive to just keep everything you get, regardless of whether you can use it on that character or not, because hey - you can sell everything you get for real money, and you can turn around and use that same money to buy more items for your character! In effect, this can turn all drops into potential money, and nobody is going to turn that down given the chance.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Not wanting to get too involved in this argument, but Mobby, what they have released shows that there IS going to be a fee just for listing, then an additional fee after selling.

 

[MobBoss]

Of course, people will have alts in D3 just like in every other class-based fantasy RPG. In my experience, though, if you are in a party with other players and you all work together to kill something that drops an item tailored to a specific class in the party, it's considered good form to let that character have that item - after all, it was only the RNG that allocated that magic staff to the Barbarian in the first place. Conversely, it's always (IME) considered bad form to loot that magic staff and claim that kept it because "my alt needs it." That's generally seen as selfish loot-whoring.

Maybe this won't be an issue in D3; maybe it will always award class-appropriate loot to one of the characters who can use that item, so the Barbarian wouldn't get the magic staff in the first place.

Still, if that is not the case, the RMAH provides a heck of an incentive to just keep everything you get, regardless of whether you can use it on that character or not, because hey - you can sell everything you get for real money, and you can turn around and use that same money to buy more items for your character! In effect, this can turn all drops into potential money, and nobody is going to turn that down given the chance.

And Superjay the great thing about this is you can still choose to gift that item right on over to whomever you deem worth of it.

Sure, all drops turn into potential money....but when was the last time you bent over to pick up a penny? Also, you gotta remember as well, such loot can also still be sold to NPCs for in game items as well, or to take a gamble on a mystery item. So there was already incentive to keep all your loot for yourself regardless, you just sold it to an NPC vendor for various benefit (pots, items, gems, etc.) as opposed to selling it to someone else for pennies on the dollar.

Not wanting to get too involved in this argument, but Mobby, what they have released shows that there IS going to be a fee just for listing, then an additional fee after selling.

I actually have no clue, but i'm not going to judge them right now on something that can still be changed/altered prior to release.

 

[Akka]

I have both anecdotal evidence and factual numbers to indicate that WoW remains a well done and popular game.

So, go back to square one "popularity means quality"...
Guess it's useless to talk to a brick wall.

 

[Maniacal]

I'm not even very interested in Diablo 3 but even I would like to get back on topic now.

What classes will it have?

This thread is about to de-rail.

The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round, the wheels...

 

[Rub'Rum]

Witch Doctor
Barbarian
Demon Hunter
Wizard
Monk

 

[MobBoss]

So, go back to square one "popularity means quality"...
Guess it's useless to talk to a brick wall.

In my opinion, a game being popular is a direct indicator of quality. Games that truly suck dont become popular. Again, if you really want to debate this, then make another thread. But I can already tell you what we are not going to see eye to eye on is the definition of 'quality' in a video game.

But more insults Akka? Cant you discuss this without the monkey-poo flinging? Or at least try?

 

[Maniacal]

Witch Doctor

Necromancer?

Demon Hunter

?

 

[Rub'Rum]

Witch Doctor is indeed a bit like the necro. The Demon Hunter seems to be the token ranged attacker (occupying the amazon's niche I guess, although it's also mixed with some of D2's assassin I think).

 

[Chieftess]

Moderator Action: General warning - Akka and Mob, let's stop this flamewar before infractions and warnings start flying.

 

[Thormodr]

The Demon hunter looks like something lifted straight out of WoW.

The Barbarian is the same as before.

The Wizard is unchanged as well.

The Witch Doctor is basically the Necromancer.

The Monk is something new I guess.

All in all, not terribly exciting.

 

[Akka]

In my opinion, a game being popular is a direct indicator of quality. Games that truly suck dont become popular. Again, if you really want to debate this, then make another thread. But I can already tell you what we are not going to see eye to eye on is the definition of 'quality' in a video game.

But more insults Akka? Cant you discuss this without the monkey-poo flinging? Or at least try?

You've had counter-proofs that "quality" = "popularity" is wrong, you simply chose to ignore it.
Your opinions < facts, as annoying as it can be for you.
End of discussion.

 

[Maniacal]

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/08/22/d...-being-played-right-if-it&#8217;s-not-online/

We met up with Diablo 3 game director, Jay Wilson at Gamescom to discuss Diablo 3&#8242;s always-online requirement and some of the issues that PC gamers can face when playing online-only games.

Some players might not have access to a stable internet connection. What should a player do if, say, the internet wiring in his house is flawed?

&#8220;Erm&#8230; upgrade the wiring in his house?&#8221; suggests Wilson. &#8220;I mean, in this day and age the notion that there&#8217;s this a whole vast majority of players out there that don&#8217;t have online connectivity &#8211; this doesn&#8217;t really fly any more.


&#8220;I mean, at our hotel, there&#8217;s nine wi-fi networks that I can access. Just from the hotel! And they&#8217;re all public &#8211; they&#8217;re all paid &#8211; but they&#8217;re pretty cheap, and they&#8217;re all publicly available. So the notion that there&#8217;s just tons and tons of people out there that aren&#8217;t connected &#8211; isn&#8217;t&#8230; I don&#8217;t think is really accurate.&#8221;

Wilson also told us some of the philosophical and practical reasons behind the decision not to include any sort of offline mode.

&#8220;There&#8217;s two basic problems with us doing that,&#8221; said Wilson. &#8220;One is players default immediately to that. So, they basically unintentionally opt out of all the cooperative experience, all the trading experience, and the core of Diablo is a circle-trading game. So for us we&#8217;ve always viewed it as an online game &#8211; the game&#8217;s not really being played right if it&#8217;s not online, so when we have that specific question of why are we allowing it? Because that&#8217;s the best experience, why would you want it any other way?&#8221;

Wilson admits that the decision will alienate some players, but also suggests that it&#8217;s impossible to please everyone.

&#8220;You&#8217;ve got to make choices about what you want to do, and sometimes those choices are going to make some people unhappy, but if you feel like it&#8217;s what is the right thing to do to making a better product then you have to do it,&#8221; he says.

&#8220;An online experience is what we want to provide for this game. Every choice you make is going to omit some part of the audience. Some people don&#8217;t like fantasy games, so should we have not made Diablo a fantasy game, because some people don&#8217;t like that? Some people don&#8217;t like barbarians. Should we not have put a barbarian in the game because some people don&#8217;t like it?&#8221;



From a practical angle, piracy was also a concern for Blizzard when they made the decision to make Diablo 3 require an internet connection.

&#8220;If we allow an Offline mode, it changes the structure of the data that we have to put on the user&#8217;s system. Essentially we would have to put our server architecture onto the client so that it can run its own personal server. Doing that essentially is one of the reasons why Diablo 2 was a much easier game to hack than obviously any other game you&#8217;d mention and so it&#8217;s what led to extensive cheating and item dupes and things like that.&#8221;

&#8220;I would never guarantee that we&#8217;re never going to have those things in Diablo 3, but it&#8217;s one of the things that our community has been the most vocal about, wanting this fixed, and if we essentially are putting the server out there&#8230;we&#8217;re not really going to be able to better than Diablo 2.&#8221;

Wow. Apparently Blizzard is completely out of touch with reality and Diablo is a trading game first and foremost!

My condolences to anyone who was looking forward to Diablo 3.

 

[LightSpectra]

"The core of Diablo is a circle-trading game"? lolwut? I thought it was an adventure game. Looks like WoW has permanently warped Blizzard's outlook on video games.

 

[Sadan01]

&#8220;If we allow an Offline mode, it changes the structure of the data that we have to put on the user&#8217;s system. Essentially we would have to put our server architecture onto the client so that it can run its own personal server. Doing that essentially is one of the reasons why Diablo 2 was a much easier game to hack than obviously any other game you&#8217;d mention and so it&#8217;s what led to extensive cheating and item dupes and things like that.&#8221;

What a load of crap. If we're talking about why LAN-play is missing, then this response seems appropriate. As they're talking about pure single-player I can only assume Diablo III is going to chat to Blizzard's servers when it wants to drop some loot? No? Or does this quote apply to the "trading-system" where you can use either RL-money or in-game gold?

The choice is simple - if the player wanted to play the game offline, those features are/should be disabled. The underlying code is still shipped with the game in case the player wants to play online, so the trading houses are activated, but if the player is offline that part of the code is simply not used. Is Blizzard going to tell us that the trading house code constitutes gigabytes of information that would inflate the shipped media's footprint?

Blizzard is being disingenuous here. They could allow the player to be playing Diablo III offline quite easily just they choose not to. However in my cynical mind it has more to do with making you play online so they can easily roll out "tempters" to make it practically a given that you'll have to spend RL-money to be competitive in PVP or even in PVE.

"Erm&#8230; upgrade the wiring in his house?&#8221; suggests Wilson. &#8220;I mean, in this day and age the notion that there&#8217;s this a whole vast majority of players out there that don&#8217;t have online connectivity &#8211; this doesn&#8217;t really fly any more."

My internet connection, for now, is rock solid however that isn't the point. Unless you're using fibre to connect to your ISP, your connection is anything but "rock-solid" (and even with fibre it isn't rock-solid either). The fact that someone may not have an internet connection isn't really the issue (although it is funny that Jay chooses to answer the question in this way). It is the fact that a lot of the connections to the Internet are made via (aging) copper-wiring or via crappy wireless connections. Requiring an "always-on" connection is going to cause problems, no matter what you say.

Quite frankly, requiring an always-on connection just so the publisher can "rest-easy" that you haven't pirated the game is stupid and insulting. Once again, a paying customer is being treated like a criminal.

Well I can rest-easy. The Diablo franchise was one that has always had a special place in my games library. No more. Diablo III is a non-purchase. I will not support a developer/publisher that treats its customers in this way by telling me I have to always be connected to their servers to play the game I purchased for single-player. Blizzard seem to be confused as to what constitutes a "hack 'n slash" game with what constitutes a "MMO" title. Blizzard might be confused, but I'm not.

Also note I haven't purchased a UBISoft title in years for the same BS practices.

Thanks for being so open and up-front, Blizzard. Now I know that there are many other games to spend my money on instead of your attempt at milking another franchise while giving me a second-hand experience.

 

[Rub'Rum]

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.