|
I also think alot of the anger about the servers crashing is IMO Blizzard should have know better by now.
Blizzard has run one of the most popular MMORPGs for the last 8 years. I have gotten every wow expansion on launch day, installed, played on launch day without any issue at all.
If any company should have been able to handle this, it should have been Blizzard.
But you can't rate a game on if you can't play. Blame the servers and company that was not prepared. Rate the game on the game.
|
I can't really write anything bad about the servers (european battle net), I got thrown out of the game three times (I still grind my teeth abot being tossed out of a single player campaign for server issues), but I don't think that is to bad for the starting day.
If it was worse on multiplayer servers or in the US that is obviously a bad thing but shouldn't reflect in the game rating (Read some of the Metacritic reviews - it seems most of them are 'bah, not connection - worst game ever'), but if the problem continues should be mentioned in the professional reviews.
I also think alot of the anger about the servers crashing is IMO Blizzard should have know better by now.
Blizzard has run one of the most popular MMORPGs for the last 8 years. I have gotten every wow expansion on launch day, installed, played on launch day without any issue at all.
If any company should have been able to handle this, it should have been Blizzard.
I agree 100%. This release was sloppy, server load should have been the first thing squashed in beta.
Beyond that, I love the game. I don't want change with the classic games like Diablo and StarCraft. Check out C&C4 or DA2 for what too much change do to a classic. Updated story, graphics, minor changes to the interface is enough to keep the kool aid formula intact.|
|
That is fine but (and keep in mind, ranting aside, I like the game and gladly paid for it) after a buildup over such a long time, I would have expected a little more change, not to the basic gameplay of course, but look at the change from DI to DII - from a few cellars to a whole world, bigger, badder monsters, different sort of treasures, more story, skill system etc.
Now look at DIII - better graphics, instead of a reinvented skill system (or something to make the skill system from DII work better), character development is more or less automatic again, the world is largely the same (with largely the same characters and not much of an expanded story to speak of).
Since Diablo II several games tried to copy and expand the formula created by blizzard, because the game was a revolution (like it or not). Most of the games were worse, all of them were less successful, but for a game with a setup like Diablo III, changing almost nothing feels a bit...less then expected.
Some (me among them) are cool with having got a fun game, even if it is likely forgotten much faster then its predecessor, some are dissappointed enough to let that dissappointment spoil what they actually got, and that is whet we see in the negative reviews (at least in those that don't just say 'duh, DRM bad'.
edit: reply to Sunderstone, not to TerraNova.
I think one of the problems is, aside from the DRM, that players were expecting something new and revolutionary after a this long development time (sort of like I did, though I am not too disappointed since the game is plain fun), while they got pretty much an updated Diablo II.
I don't think I've seen many people wanting something revolutionary from DIABLO 3. STARCRAFT 2 was simply an updated STARCRAFT, and if Blizzard had done something new and original with D3 the nerdrage from the majority (who probably did just want 'more Diablo') would be overwhelming.
I'll wait my 6-12 months and pick it up for less than half of its release price. I'm interested to see where they took the story, but D2 didn't itch me to buy the expansion, so...
Good luck with that. Two years on, I've never seen STARCRAFT 2 for more than a few pounds off the original price. Blizzard keep a very tight control over their game prices and rarely allow any retailer to do discounts.
|
|
I think one of the problems is, aside from the DRM, that players were expecting something new and revolutionary after a this long development time (sort of like I did, though I am not too disappointed since the game is plain fun), while they got pretty much an updated Diablo II.I don't think I've seen many people wanting something revolutionary from DIABLO 3. STARCRAFT 2 was simply an updated STARCRAFT, and if Blizzard had done something new and original with D3 the nerdrage from the majority (who probably did just want 'more Diablo') would be overwhelming.
I didn't want to imply that the negative reviews would have been less with a DIII that changed a bit more - with a setup like DIII got from the media AND the DRM they implemented, a negative Metacritic score was probably unavoydable, even if they would have given the game away for free...
3.5/100 from 1427 users on Metacritic. I don't take the site that seriously, but that kind of response is a bit significant. It'll be interesting to see where the score lands after a month.
Yet another game that will have professional review Metacritic scores in the 8-10 range and random-internet-people review Metacritic scores in the 2-4 range. Gamers suck, we see this all the time, and Metacritic should stop giving them a voice.
Some (me among them) are cool with having got a fun game, even if it is likely forgotten much faster then its predecessor, some are dissappointed enough to let that dissappointment spoil what they actually got, and that is whet we see in the negative reviews (at least in those that don't just say 'duh, DRM bad'.
edit: reply to Sunderstone, not to TerraNova.
This I can agree with. :) Nice response Feytharn.
I loved StarCraft 2, but it was forgotten way faster than it's predecessor. Diablo 3 will follow the same trend IMHO. That's fine as I bought it for what it is and I'm not disappointed at all.
|
So after playing a little of D3 last night I and my BF who was watching me play came to the same conclusion, it is very much like Dungeon Siege 3. We both were really hoping for a world you could rotate the views with and I thought this was something Blizzard was going to do in D3. Over all from the little I got to play last night, not thrilled about the skills, but I will make do and try to enjoy. Not sure if the BF will get it and play, but I may let him use the guest pass to try it.
I don't know anything about Kool Aid but if I see a bird bath full of red or blue liquid in Diablo 3 I'm going to drink it.
Has anyone figured out how to identify items?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone figured out how to identify items?
Stay a while and listen?
Has anyone figured out how to identify items?Stay a while and listen?
Does that mean something or are you being smarmy?
Does that mean something or are you being smarmy?Has anyone figured out how to identify items?Stay a while and listen?
So you haven't played the first Diablo?
Back to the question: the scrolls are gone now, so I think it's more like identifying items in NWN--right click the item. If that fails, try right clicking in town.
Does that mean something or are you being smarmy?Has anyone figured out how to identify items?Stay a while and listen?So you haven't played the first Diablo?
Back to the question: the scrolls are gone now, so I think it's more like identifying items in NWN--right click the item. If that fails, try right clicking in town.
I'm familiar with Dekard Cain. He's in this one too, but is less than helpful.
Yet another game that will have professional review Metacritic scores in the 8-10 range and random-internet-people review Metacritic scores in the 2-4 range. Gamers suck, we see this all the time, and Metacritic should stop giving them a voice.
An extremely dubious point of view. The professional reviews have either not mentioned the always-on DRM at all (disingenuous at best) or severely downplayed the potential problems. That gamers themselves are able to pick up the slack and advertise these issues is definitely a good thing.
At the same time, however, the game itself is clearly advertised as having the always-on DRM on the box, so by buying it the purchaser is basically agreeing to put up with (and if other people haven't played the game, they should not be even thinking about writing reviews for it) it already. What they are not going to put up with, however, is the game simply not working due to the servers crashing if all they want to do is play single-player online. In that case a negative review is clearly warranted.
A lot of people have obviously gone way too far. The avalanche of perfect 0 scores is clearly hyperbole (and in some of the reviews, bordering on hysteria). However, it does help balance out the avalanche of 'professional' perfect 10 scores, which are also clearly unwarranted due to the technical issues.
An extremely dubious point of view. The professional reviews have either not mentioned the always-on DRM at all (disingenuous at best) or severely downplayed the potential problems.
That's because the online-only nature of the game does not reduce its quality any more than the online-only nature of a game like WoW reduces its quality. Viewed properly as a game with massively-multiplayer elements, it makes perfect sense.
That gamers themselves are able to pick up the slack and advertise these issues is definitely a good thing.
That gamers are allowed to torpedo a game's reputation on a high-profile site like Metacritic because of their pet-peeve of the hour is definitely not a good thing.
A lot of people have obviously gone way too far. The avalanche of perfect 0 scores is clearly hyperbole (and in some of the reviews, bordering on hysteria). However, it does help balance out the avalanche of 'professional' perfect 10 scores, which are also clearly unwarranted due to the technical issues.
What avalanche? According to Metacritic, the game hasn't even received any perfect review scores yet.
I really don't think that overwhelming demand in the first 24 hours of the game's release causing sporadic server issues warrants a reduced score. When you're talking about a game that will be played for years to come, it would be a little ridiculous for someone to say, "Hey, Diablo 3 has been out for a year, maybe I'll go pick it up. But first, I'll read some reviews!" only to discover that the reviews are lower than they ought to be because of launch-day issues. No one is going to care about launch day issues after the first day.
So after playing a little of D3 last night I and my BF who was watching me play came to the same conclusion, it is very much like Dungeon Siege 3. We both were really hoping for a world you could rotate the views with and I thought this was something Blizzard was going to do in D3. Over all from the little I got to play last night, not thrilled about the skills, but I will make do and try to enjoy. Not sure if the BF will get it and play, but I may let him use the guest pass to try it.
www.grimdawn.com just got kickstarted and it looks VERY similar to D3, to me anyways. It looks to have the camera rotating you are looking for.
Also, look at www.pathofexile.com for a dark gritty game that looks a lot like a true D2 sequel.
And of coure there is torchlight2 on the horizon as well.
The ARPG desert seems to be all aflourish. :)
Maybe not perfect zero scores, but it does warrant calling out- and a certain degree of dissatisfaction. If server problems result in being kicked off of your single player game, then it deserves to be docked points just as much as one would for bugs and other problems like any other game.
Given that Blizzard made the single most popular MMORPG ever and that Diablo 3's popularity isn't exactly a surprise, you would think they'd be able to get this together a bit better- especially since online gaming is entirely required to even play it. I'm not saying there isn't hyperbole, but there absolutely should be serious criticism.
Mouse over the item in inventory, right click on it. Takes about 10 seconds.Has anyone figured out how to identify items?
Thanks. I was just expecting it to be harderr and I kept looking for "the key" which didn't exist. That makes it harder to find.
Does that mean something or are you being smarmy?Has anyone figured out how to identify items?Stay a while and listen?So you haven't played the first Diablo?
Back to the question: the scrolls are gone now, so I think it's more like identifying items in NWN--right click the item. If that fails, try right clicking in town.
Yay for no longer dealing identify and town portal scrolls. But yes that's it. you right click and there's a casting delay for doing the identify.
Also new... the stash is shared between all characters.
Having to keep up with identify scrolls and town portals was rather annoying. I'm glad they did away with it. Though without a cost past the ten seconds it takes to identify I'm not sure why they bothered with having unidentified items at all.
Night one I got to play for about 90 minutes before they took down the servers, what I could play was fun.
Last Night I was getting disconnected from my game every 3 minutes or so. After playing with a friend for about an hour powering through it, I gave up and spent 30 minutes in the forums until I found out how to fix that (You need to join the general channel before starting a game). Then I got to play for maybe an hour and the servers came to a crashing halt again.
So game is fun when I can play. Wish they would have included a single player mode (like has been said before)
That's because the online-only nature of the game does not reduce its quality any more than the online-only nature of a game like WoW reduces its quality. Viewed properly as a game with massively-multiplayer elements, it makes perfect sense.
WoW is an exclusively multiplayer game. Playing it single-player is not possible (you can solo quite a bit, but there is a vast amount of content that is unreachable without a group) and does not really make sense.
DIABLO III is a game with both single-player and multiplayer modes. Playing it single-player is perfectly possible and should not be dependent on a permanent Internet connection.
That gamers are allowed to torpedo a game's reputation on a high-profile site like Metacritic because of their pet-peeve of the hour is definitely not a good thing.
People not being able to voice their opinion - idiocy or not - is not a good thing? Note that Metacritic does list the reviewers and fan scores separately, and I think people are intelligent enough to click on both, see what the fan complaints are and if they are valid or not. If you are a member of the armed forces travelling abroad without a reliable, permanent internet connection, the fact that you cannot play the game at all (something that a number of professional reviews were vague about, or didn't mention at all) is vitally important.
I really don't think that overwhelming demand in the first 24 hours of the game's release causing sporadic server issues warrants a reduced score. When you're talking about a game that will be played for years to come, it would be a little ridiculous for someone to say, "Hey, Diablo 3 has been out for a year, maybe I'll go pick it up. But first, I'll read some reviews!" only to discover that the reviews are lower than they ought to be because of launch-day issues. No one is going to care about launch day issues after the first day.
To some extent agreed, in that this is a temporary issue. The same is true of other games: FALLOUT NEW VEGAS's review scores (pro and fan) were marked down due to technical issues that were (mostly) resolved with patches. In that case, the developers missed out on a significant cash bonus because it didn't hit a certain Metacritic score for problems that were not entirely their own fault (the publishers' QA department was extremely lax in spotting a lot of the problems) and were resolved within a few months.
However, it is also the case that people not being able to play a single-player game because some server somewhere isn't working properly is also ridiculous. Certainly Blizzard's activities over DIABLO 3 are, in the UK anyway, extremely dubious from a legal perspective and it'll be interesting to see if they do suffer legal issues over the game not being fit for purpose on release (and seeing how many refunds they get would be fascinating).
My favorite thing said in the game thus far,
"This seems a likely place to hide the head of a deranged sorcerer."
Only multiplayer I did so far was a little in the open beta stress test. But I thought it auto joined general chat?(You need to join the general channel before starting a game).
It did for me in the stress test as well, but not in the final. I would like to play without the chatter though so I hope it gets resolved
Maybe not perfect zero scores, but it does warrant calling out- and a certain degree of dissatisfaction. If server problems result in being kicked off of your single player game, then it deserves to be docked points just as much as one would for bugs and other problems like any other game.
I don't see why. It's explicitly presented as an online single-player game with a rather extensive multiplayer network that is arguably inseparable from the single-player mode due to the seamless economic integration and social functions.
I mean, you could make the argument that they didn't have to make the game online-only, but that's a design choice with some solid reasoning behind it - curbing cheating, integrating the auction house, etc. When you make a design choice like that, it's with the understanding that, as with all immensely popular online games, there are going to be stresses placed on the online infrastructure immediately following launch. None of that means that the game is of poor quality.
Given that Blizzard made the single most popular MMORPG ever and that Diablo 3's popularity isn't exactly a surprise, you would think they'd be able to get this together a bit better- especially since online gaming is entirely required to even play it. I'm not saying there isn't hyperbole, but there absolutely should be serious criticism.
The industry is just not there in terms of being able to handle day-one server loads for immensely popular games. No one has really gotten it right consistently. There's nothing to judge it against.
DIABLO III is a game with both single-player and multiplayer modes. Playing it single-player is perfectly possible and should not be dependent on a permanent Internet connection.
Because you say so, or what? A constant internet connection has purposes beyond facilitating multiplayer.
People not being able to voice their opinion - idiocy or not - is not a good thing?
Allowing anonymous, overly-invested/entitled internet nerds to have their senseless opinions actually matter in an observable way (by influencing an aggregate user review score on a very visible review site) is not a good thing, no.
Note that Metacritic does list the reviewers and fan scores separately, and I think people are intelligent enough to click on both, see what the fan complaints are and if they are valid or not.
You cannot simultaneously hold the view that people in general are stupid enough to post 0/10 review scores for a game like Diablo 3, and are also intelligent enough to do a thorough and thoughtful read-through of both professional and user reviews. Metacritic is proof-positive that a lot of people really are not that intelligent.
If you are a member of the armed forces travelling abroad without a reliable, permanent internet connection, the fact that you cannot play the game at all (something that a number of professional reviews were vague about, or didn't mention at all) is vitally important.
And that's a shame, but those armed forces members can't play WoW either. Should WoW be docked points in reviews because of this?
I know what you're going to say.
"But WoW is a multiplayer-only game, and Diablo 3 isn't!"
Rad. But there are legitimate reasons for requiring a constant connection that don't involve facilitating multiplayer. For some reason you've decided that facilitating multiplayer is a legitimate reason for requiring a connection, while ensuring that items are not duplicated in an effort to monopolize the game's totally multiplayer auction house and economy isn't legitimate.
What it boils down to is this: Unless you can show that there is no legitimate reason to require a constant internet connection in Diablo 3, there is similarly no legitimate reason to dock it points for requiring a constant internet connection.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Allowing anonymous, overly-invested/entitled internet nerds to have their senseless opinions actually matter in an observable way (by influencing an aggregate user review score on a very visible review site) is not a good thing, no.[...]
Rad. But there are legitimate reasons for requiring a constant connection that don't involve facilitating multiplayer. For some reason you've decided that facilitating multiplayer is a legitimate reason for requiring a connection, while ensuring that items are not duplicated in an effort to monopolize the game's totally multiplayer auction house and economy isn't legitimate.
Scott, I frankly never quite clicked with your opinions in the past, but usually you raised points I could at least respect. However, this latest pet peeve of yours smacks of some ideas I frankly find reprehensible. Following that line of logic, you could ban anyone from publishing "overly-invested/entitled <insert derogatory terms) opinions" on about any subject. After all, it is frankly obvious we need to <liberate iran / leash the maniacal banking sector / protect our citizens from secular propaganda>.
Additionally, and just for the heck of it - you put the cart before the horse here. Putting a "fully global auction house" in an essentially single player experience is a very good scapegoat for the constant internet connection - but the design choice to do that is not automatic, but had to be made at some point. The same logic as "ah, its always online so we can stop cheaters" applies here - there is no gain, its a lousy excuse tacked on to a pre-concieved choice. You want an auction house? Play online. But what if I want to cheat in my single player game? Why should I be prohibited from it?
An extremely dubious point of view. The professional reviews have either not mentioned the always-on DRM at all (disingenuous at best) or severely downplayed the potential problems.That's because the online-only nature of the game does not reduce its quality any more than the online-only nature of a game like WoW reduces its quality. Viewed properly as a game with massively-multiplayer elements, it makes perfect sense.
B!*+!@*#! It makes a huge amount of difference. I only want to play single-player mode and will never use the in-house 'Cheat" store so why for f@!%s sake am I at the mercy o Blizzards servers to determine when I can play the game I bought...or should I say leased.
The only reason I can see why I have to have a ongoing internet connection to play the single-player game is so Blizzard can monitor how often I play and how I play so they can use that data to better market their next game to me. If they want my feedback they can have me fill out a survey instead of spying on me through their servers.
Actually many people say it is so the game is harder to pirate, and they have your ISP now...haha.
Because you say so, or what? A constant internet connection has purposes beyond facilitating multiplayer.
Like what? Stamping out piracy? Doesn't work, never has and never will. Games with DRM are actually far more likely to be pirated and will be pirated far more often because the DRM is too onerous to withstand. Blizzard have more robust anti-piracy measures than ever before with D3, but this will merely mean a few weeks before a pirated version is available rather than hours.
Networking, multiplayer, friend-finding, social? All of that can be accomplished by simply clicking a button. And even with a constant online connection, the game should be able to withstand temporary drop-outs (certainly of less than a few seconds) without immediately keeling over and dying.
Allowing anonymous, overly-invested/entitled internet nerds to have their senseless opinions actually matter in an observable way (by influencing an aggregate user review score on a very visible review site) is not a good thing, no.
Metacritic's fan review score is an informal device. The critical review score is actually the one that is quoted in press and on Wikipedia. The Metacritic fan score is in fact disallowed from being quoted on Wikipedia, whilst the professional review score - currently a very healthy 87% - is proudly displayed in its own box. That's hugely influential.
You cannot simultaneously hold the view that people in general are stupid enough to post 0/10 review scores for a game like Diablo 3, and are also intelligent enough to do a thorough and thoughtful read-through of both professional and user reviews. Metacritic is proof-positive that a lot of people really are not that intelligent.
This is because I hold that 'people' are individuals and are not a monolithic bloc. Some people posting the zero-score reviews are idiots. Some are people who have simply been unable to play the game despite owning it and despite paying significant sums of their hard-earned money for it, in which case a zero-score is understandable.
Something that I would agree on is that reviews need to be seen as a reflection of the game at the time the review was written and no more. Once DIABLO 3's problems are permanently fixed (and they remain ongoing, despite improvements) the reviews should be updated to reflect that. This should go in opposite directions as well, of course. Games with DRM that were reviewed well a few years ago that have had their servers shut down and are no longer playable should have all of their review scores reduced accordingly.
Rad. But there are legitimate reasons for requiring a constant connection that don't involve facilitating multiplayer. For some reason you've decided that facilitating multiplayer is a legitimate reason for requiring a connection, while ensuring that items are not duplicated in an effort to monopolize the game's totally multiplayer auction house and economy isn't legitimate.
Facilitating multiplayer requires you to have some way of playing with other people. This device, which I hear is called 'the internet', is a good way of doing this.
However, if you are playing at home by yourself, then what need do you have of the 'auction house' (which, as I understand it, was not even working at launch)? If you wish (or have the ability) to have the connection on all the time and take advantage of this feature, great. If you don't, and you lose the feature, fair enough. If Blizzard are so paranoid about the hacking problem (and, given its prevalence in the first two games, they have reason) then it can be solved by asking people straight up if they want to play online or offline, and if offline than they cannot take that character online or use the features of the auction house. There is absolutely zero reason why this was not possible.
What it boils down to is this: Unless you can show that there is no legitimate reason to require a constant internet connection in Diablo 3, there is similarly no legitimate reason to dock it points for requiring a constant internet connection.
Done. Who's with me on this? Forbes to start with, not to mention the International Business Times for another (odd that it's the magazines and websites which haven't been paid vast amounts of money to host DIABLO 3 adverts which are bringing this up, isn't it?).
The real reason why there is an always-online connection in DIABLO 3 is that Blizzard desperately want people to use the Auction House to make them more money. Hacking could be dealt with by simply not allowing non-online characters to be played online, and making that very clear. But that's not good enough for Blizzard. Being unable to justify a monthly sub fee like WoW's, they've gone for this alternate route of making tons more cash (the fact that D3 is and always was going to be one of the fastest-selling games of all time, probably making them hundreds of millions of dollars in the first few weeks on sale alone, clearly not being enough for them). Which is then even more ridiculous as huge numbers of players will likely never use the Auction House anyway (or even play online with other people), so they've been penalised for no good reason.
Actually many people say it is so the game is harder to pirate, and they have your ISP now...haha.
There will be a bug free cracked version out within a month or two. Blizzard won't have stopped any piracy with this persistent online BS, they will have only pissed off a lot of Diablo fans.
B!$#$%#~! It makes a huge amount of difference. I only want to play single-player mode and will never use the in-house 'Cheat" store
How is the auction house a cheat store? I can understand the idea that spending real world money to buy items is kind of cheating, but the auction house also lets you spend gold you've earned in-game. That's not cheating at all. Unless you consider buying things from a store cheating.
Scott, I frankly never quite clicked with your opinions in the past, but usually you raised points I could at least respect. However, this latest pet peeve of yours smacks of some ideas I frankly find reprehensible. Following that line of logic, you could ban anyone from publishing "overly-invested/entitled <insert derogatory terms) opinions" on about any subject.
It looks like you're trying to raise a freedom of speech argument. Let me help you with that.
Freedom of speech (as represented by legal constructs like the 1st Amendment) is a good thing. It allows citizens to openly criticize their own government, and is therefore a necessary hedge against tyranny. I'm sure you agree.
The fact that freedom of speech is a good thing, however, does not mean that all speech is good.
There is such a thing as bad speech, including speech that the world in general would probably just be better off without.
Also, happily, the concept of freedom of speech does not apply to private organizations, like businesses. For instance, I do not have freedom of speech on these forums. The good folks at Paizo can and do moderate speech that is considered unproductive, and this is a better forum for it.
Similarly, allowing anonymous internet rage monsters with chronically tragic senses of perspective to contribute to a laughable public opinion aggregate score is probably something we could do without. It doesn't actually tell us anything productive, except that those anonymous internet rage monsters have found yet another thing to be way more upset at than any reasonable person ought to be. It's not a way to share well-constructed opinions on video games (or other forms of media). It's just an outlet for people to fling poo at things they find flaw with. This is why we have professional reviewers - because people in general are straight-up awful at sitting still for long enough to form a reasonable view of something that's gotten their comical rage engine going.
I think we can all agree (or all ought to agree) that well-constructed, reasonable opinions - even those you disagree with! - are preferable to knee-jerk ones. Now, I'm not sure why Metacritic chooses to allow user reviews, given their sordid history and ultimately-flawed nature, but they do. They probably shouldn't, but I'm sure it drives a lot of traffic the site would otherwise not receive.
Additionally, and just for the heck of it - you put the cart before the horse here. Putting a "fully global auction house" in an essentially single player experience is a very good scapegoat for the constant internet connection - but the design choice to do that is not automatic, but had to be made at some point. The same logic as "ah, its always online so we can stop cheaters" applies here - there is no gain, its a lousy excuse tacked on to a pre-concieved choice. You want an auction house? Play online. But what if I want to cheat in my single player game? Why should I be prohibited from it?
Because this game was designed with the premise that your single player character can be dropped into a multiplayer game at any time. You don't have to create a specifically multiplayer character or anything like that. If you start out playing single player (as I suspect most of Diablo 3's players have) and reach max level with some pretty rad gear, you don't have to start over from scratch when your friends say, "Hey, let's try out multiplayer!" You can bring your favorite character, and they can bring theirs, and all of the equipment you've earned and all the equipment your friends have earned will be legitimate.
Ah Mr. Betts, always at the center of anything abrasive. I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner.
To the rest, I love the game so far. I played several hours of coop with some WoW guild mates last night but.....
1) I really hate the idea of a real money auction house and I agree it's a BS money grab as well as an excuse for the draconian "must be online to play diablo 3" policy. I prefer sp to mp with this game.
2) the server load/ instability thing should have been squashed in beta, that's kind of the purpose for beta testing.
B!$#$%#~! It makes a huge amount of difference. I only want to play single-player mode and will never use the in-house 'Cheat" storeHow is the auction house a cheat store? I can understand the idea that spending real world money to buy items is kind of cheating, but the auction house also lets you spend gold you've earned in-game. That's not cheating at all. Unless you consider buying things from a store cheating.
When you can spend money, real or fake, to super-equip your character it's cheating. Especially in a game like Diablo where you are supposed to kill stuff to get stuff.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
It looks like you're trying to raise a freedom of speech argument. Let me help you with that.
Thank you, but I am capable of expressing myself without your help.
Also, happily, the concept of freedom of speech does not apply to private organizations, like businesses. For instance, I do not have freedom of speech on these forums. The good folks at Paizo can and do moderate speech that is considered unproductive, and this is a better forum for it.
Similarly, allowing anonymous internet rage monsters with chronically tragic senses of perspective to contribute to a laughable public opinion aggregate score is probably something we could do without. It doesn't actually tell us anything productive, except that those anonymous internet rage monsters have found yet another thing to be way more upset at than any reasonable person ought to be. It's not a way to share well-constructed opinions on video games (or other forms of media). It's just an outlet for people to fling poo at things they find flaw with. This is why we have professional reviewers - because people in general are straight-up awful at sitting still for long enough to form a reasonable view of something that's gotten their comical rage engine going.
You miss the key point here. You can (and should) set ground rules on speech in your own house. Metacritic has these rules - and specifically made a point of including pseudonymous reviews in a separate aggregation. So what you are essentially arguing is that you (or a fictitious "reasonable person") should have the right to set rules for what others accept as reasonable or permissible opinions in their house. Which, I hope you agree, runs contrary to the idea of any kind of freedom of speech.
Tolerance is, after all, deriving from tolerating (suffering through) adverse opinions. Even if you consider then laughable and beneath your mighty notice.
Because this game was designed with the premise that your single player character can be dropped into a multiplayer game at any time. You don't have to create a specifically multiplayer character or anything like that. If you start out playing single player (as I suspect most of Diablo 3's players have) and reach max level with some pretty rad gear, you don't have to start over from scratch when your friends say, "Hey, let's try out multiplayer!" You can bring your favorite character, and they can bring theirs, and all of the equipment you've earned and all the equipment your friends have earned will be legitimate.
That is the stated rationale. I personally find it bearing little weight. Diablo 2 had online characters, and offline characters. I for one made an online character, played it for a time with friends, and retired from the game eventually. If I had not wanted the online function, an offline character would have been fine. With my offline characters, i could (in theory) do things like create any gear, make myself unbelievably twinky or... *gasp* use a cheat program.
This choice has been taken from me, for no discernable reason beyond control. So, we had the same basic function, with choice. Now we have it without choice. Take from that what you will, but in my eyes, that is pretty solid evidence which decision caused the other.
Let's see.
I find many of Blizzard's decisions about the game insidious and exploitative. However, this diabolical (yes, I know) moneymaking scheme has me playing, multiplayer and singleplayer, until ridiculous hours without realising (even with the time shown in the top right corner).
Sometimes, I find myself stuck in a Skinner-Box loop on some game that uses the techniques effectively. After playing, I look back and say to myself, 'Why the hell did I keep doing that unfulfilling-in-hindsight activity?'. I look back and try to figure out what was fun and see nothing but brain-hacking incentive mechanisms.
With Diablo 3, after a play session I look back and see those same mechanisms in full force, expertly executed. It packages me into the Skinner Box and duct-tapes it shut quite securely. Maybe the illusion is deeper than I can disbelieve, but when I look at all those tricks, they're not all I see. I enjoy the interactivity of the environment possibly even more than the combat. There are no points or random loot drops from watching the scenery, seeing little bugs and snakes and other incidental critters going on their way and hearing the crumbling of ancient masonry underfoot. Diablo 3's fantastical world feels more real than that of so many other games. It's nigh-tangible.
It feels awesome every time I enter a new area and wonder at all the details. Maybe it will wear off once I've seen it all and come back from the beginning on the next difficulty level. Or maybe by then, it will have been long enough since seeing those first stages that it will be fresh again.
I am stuck in this box and I'm feeling fine.