Problem is that they pretty much destroyed their reputation, and reputation of diablo franchise completely. 9 million copies were sold on good will based on previous games. Their next game will not fare so good.
Next expansion release not all that far away; and then all will be forgiven.
Why doesn't the public evaluate new things on a per-case (instead of a per-reputation) basis? We know from decades of bitter experience that a company/studios last effort is an extraordinarily poor predictor of their next effort.
Marketing works too well, particularly on those who believe themselves immune to it.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I'm sure I'm echoing the sentiments of what has already been posted in here, at least I hope I am...
The game sold tremendously well and Blizzard is surely doing pretty good with their cuts from the RMAH transactions. Negative feedback doesn't mean shit to them if they're selling 6,300,000 copies in the opening week at ~$60USD per box.
The dollar bills would be earplugs to any feedback that they'd ever recieve because if you're pulling those kind of figures, it's unlikely you want to hear anything else.
Yet it also is the fastest returned game in history.
That and there are multiple law suites going on right now in different countries because of Diablo 3 not to mention the 10+ year development cycle.
Ill tell you right now, they have not broken even at all from Diablo 3.
Its not a wake up call persay because of the complaints its a wake up call due to the fact that people are quitting the game left and right.
Bash admited to only hundreds of thousands of players online at a time, and the fact that a good portion of the people that bought the game retruned it. Hell half my friends did it.
Fastest game returned in history? Multiple Law suits from different companies? Haven't broken even from Diablo 3? People quitting left and right? And bash admitting to people returning the game?
Yeah please allow me to inform you that you are more than welcome to come back to reality. Were do you get your facts from? Random people in some chat room that are also spreading these rumors? This stuff just makes me laugh. Someone just randomly shooting out rumors like there facts then beleiving in them like there true.
Fact, there is A law suit going on in EU for Diablo 3. Fact, people are slowiy not logging into Diablo but theres still a good portion playing, just not as much. Fact, it is not that fastest returned game in history, theres another game that has that title and I doubt they will ever lose it. Fact, no one knows what they have made off Diablo 3 if anything. They have yet to release any numbers except for first week sales. And Bash never admitted to anything, if he did please inform all of us by providing a link to this admission which I'm sure you cant find at this exact moment, right? Please just stop, I'm sure people get it, you do not like Diablo 3.
First off, in my opinion, Diablo 3 is a decent game. It keeps me entertained for the time I play it and I can play with my friends. I don't make my hobbies a chore, which some of you seem to do. I just enjoy having fun in a game. I have a level 60 DH on Inferno Act 3 and a level 54 Monk on Hell Act 3. Is it what I expected it should be after playing Diablo 2, nope. Does that bother me, nope. Why? Because its a different team, and a different vision. Whats so wrong with that. I don't want to play a Daiblo 2 with modern graphics and fresher systems. If i did, I would just go by Diablo 2 and hack up a mod. I paid my money to play a new game, with new systems and a new vision. And I got it. Some of you are just sitting to far into the past and won't let go. Games and play styles change and evolve. So do the companies that deliver these things, If they just kept pumping out old visions and concepts, gaming would be a stagnant money maker and developers would move on. So, there you have it my opinion. Like it or hate it, its mine, not yours.
I think future Blizzard games will be very mainstream and bland and they will try hard not to offend anyone. They will certainly be good from a business POV.
No. I think they take risks. RMAH is a huge risk and they know it.
Personally, i like it. Real money won't devalue like gold.
And the game is really fun. Good combat system. Good production values.
If the critique was aimed at the AH in general, I could understand it better because (a) killing mobs and finding an upgrade is fun, (b) the AH interface isn't fun, and (c) using the AH massively reduces the upgrades I'll end up getting from mobs.
Personally that critique is not valid to me. Because
a) killing mobs and find a valuable item is fun ... it is much more frustrating to get a perfect DH item while i am running a wiz (and no i don't have multiple 60s to use all the good stuff i get),
b) i agree .. we need more filters on AH. It needs to be done better ... better yet, it should be on the web.
c) Yeah, but it is fun to find a good deal (and good upgrades) on the AH
I think those that think there is overwhelmingly negative on Diablo 3 feedback are too biased. I saw the OP's link to the D3 forums, I followed it... 26 page long thread. Versus... Blizzards attempt to reach out to the community to see how they can fix various gameplay annoyances (MF gear swap) is currently over 900 pages long. So as far as a community base goes 26 page thread is <10% of those active in the Blizzard community. So if 5% of the people who like your game hate it? You're doing pretty damn awesome, thats 95% positive.
I think those unhappy with the game is a very loud minority, so was it a wake up call? Nope not a chance. Overwhelmingly the response to the game has been positive. I feel bad that you did not buy the game based on negative feedback on forums such as these. I have not seen a single game released ever that has not gotten slammed by threads on these boards.
"They essentially want to say 'Correlation proves Causation' when it's just not true." - Sovrath
Personally that critique is not valid to me. Because
a) killing mobs and find a valuable item is fun ... it is much more frustrating to get a perfect DH item while i am running a wiz (and no i don't have multiple 60s to use all the good stuff i get),
b) i agree .. we need more filters on AH. It needs to be done better ... better yet, it should be on the web.
c) Yeah, but it is fun to find a good deal (and good upgrades) on the AH
Some other games have already solved (A) by simply not letting gear drop which isn't for your class. (Which you could clearly expand in a multiplayer game to have extra things drop so you can have that little bit of mid-game trading fun.)
Filters don't solve (B). We're comparing a UI vs. a game. The AH UI is never going to be as fun as playing Diablo's combat. Yet the game forces you to interact with it a lot. It's sub-optimal design. Please recall how many WOW upgrades you received in (1) fun gameplay vs. (2) AH UI. They hit the mix right in that game, where very few upgrades came from the AH. The tragedy is that these two games (WOW and D3) come from the same company.
(C) It's not that fun to find a good deal. Certainly not as fun as playing the game itself.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Overall, that is not what i have written, we are talking about very specific forms of combat and challenge, that you see them as generic "good combat design" and essential IS the problem.
If YOU want a limited challenge system and linear gear progression, you can go to wow, it works both ways.
Speak plainly and come out with your point.
Are you really suggesting we don't need challenge? Because without challenge, there's no game. WOW has nothing to do with it, this is true of any game (which is why D3's specific form of combat also doesn't matter.)
Very little about D3's loot is "linear progression" (see "loot dice" example from above post)
I already did, you have just chosen what to attack, luckily it was not my point
There are different forms of challenge and combat, just because we have this kind of challenge in d3 (small groups of mobs more powerful than your character to the point that occasionally they have more skills numerically than your character) does not mean it is the only way just because it IS a form of challenge and combat. Similar survivability, is it really important to basically force defensive stuff on the player, because he will be unable to kill anything, instead of secondary considerations (exp loss, gold loss, or simply making the fight more enjoyable) being the main drive to be more durable?
As for linear progression, it is random linear progression if you want , a lv 40 item will in general not have the same amount of a stat as a lv 60 item because the chance to get 75% of a possible stat is roughly the same in the grand scale of things (due to spreads having increased minimums, too), outside of considering a excellent lv 40 item vs a very bad lv 60 item. It is very visible on stuff like crit chance, at lv 40 you get 3-3.5%, at lv 60 you get 5-6.5%, that makes the item hunt on alts extremely unfun, in reality you have no chance to find anything useful for your main and due to the randomness even for the alt before you hit lv 60. Wow works the same way, except for the randomness, this being a point of many discussions "if the mobs are as hard as heroic/raid bosses, shouldnt they drop the same guaranteed good (if not always usefull for anyone) loot?".
I already did, you have just chosen what to attack, luckily it was not my point
There are different forms of challenge and combat, just because we have this kind of challenge in d3 (small groups of mobs more powerful than your character to the point that occasionally they have more skills numerically than your character) does not mean it is the only way just because it IS a form of challenge and combat. Similar survivability, is it really important to basically force defensive stuff on the player, because he will be unable to kill anything, instead of secondary considerations (exp loss, gold loss, or simply making the fight more enjoyable) being the main drive to be more durable?
As for linear progression, it is random linear progression if you want , a lv 40 item will in general not have the same amount of a stat as a lv 60 item because the chance to get 75% of a possible stat is roughly the same in the grand scale of things (due to spreads having increased minimums, too), outside of considering a excellent lv 40 item vs a very bad lv 60 item. It is very visible on stuff like crit chance, at lv 40 you get 3-3.5%, at lv 60 you get 5-6.5%, that makes the item hunt on alts extremely unfun, in reality you have no chance to find anything useful for your main and due to the randomness even for the alt before you hit lv 60. Wow works the same way, except for the randomness, this being a point of many discussions "if the mobs are as hard as heroic/raid bosses, shouldnt they drop the same guaranteed good (if not always usefull for anyone) loot?".
I guess I don't remember where anyone said only one specific type of challenge matters. When I say challenge I mean all challenge (or rather: all enjoyable challenge.)
Survivability is one such challenge and there's nothing wrong with the way it's implemented in D3 apart from its value raising a bit abruptly in relation to other stats.
But you basically walked through the list of every single way D3 offers challenge and implied "we don't need this", when in fact all of those challenges are why D3 is at least as fun as it is.
Are you suggesting D3 should've been a completely different game? What's the point of that? These types of games work and are tons of fun when balanced correctly.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Seems to me that the people that are complaining should consider Hell difficulty their end game and leave Inferno for those who actually enjoy the game.
Hell mode is still challenging if you don't cheese it and buy Inferno gear off the AH. The best part of the game is "finally" getting those sweet drops. You'll probably never get the perfect drop, but if you haven't upgraded everything via the AH then you'll get plenty of upgrades from drops.
I really question whether those that complain about thegame really like these hack-n-slash dungeon crawlers. People say thinks like "I don't like repetition" when that's what these games are! Not just D3 but Torchlight and all the other Diablo clones.
(Hopefully this post was nice enough so I don't get another warning...)
But you basically walked through the list of every single way D3 offers challenge and implied "we don't need this", when in fact all of those challenges are why D3 is at least as fun as it is.
Are you suggesting D3 should've been a completely different game? What's the point of that? These types of games work and are tons of fun when balanced correctly.
"These types of games", which ones, name another two which have the features we are arguing about.
You are again escaping into generics, because a <random lemon> is a car does not mean it is a good car just because you think cars are good things.
The meaning of arpg or diablo clone or diablo series does not magically change once they release another game.
"Fun as it is", it could have been MORE fun, especially since the past games WERE more fun, while you got your month for 60 bucks it does not mean it is ok, for a game of a very successful series, from a very successful developer.
In essence i am saying, that in my opinion the game offers the wrong challenge the wrong way, that the problem is deeper than just tweaking some numbers as you suggest, and you can agree or disagree.
I really question whether those that complain about thegame really like these hack-n-slash dungeon crawlers. People say thinks like "I don't like repetition" when that's what these games are! Not just D3 but Torchlight and all the other Diablo clones.
The problem is we are not hacking and slashing, we are kiting and dying and browsing the ah.
"These types of games", which ones, name another two which have the features we are arguing about.
You are again escaping into generics, because a is a car does not mean it is a good car just because you think cars are good things.
The meaning of arpg or diablo clone or diablo series does not magically change once they release another game.
"Fun as it is", it could have been MORE fun, especially since the past games WERE more fun, while you got your month for 60 bucks it does not mean it is ok, for a game of a very successful series, from a very successful developer.
In essence i am saying, that in my opinion the game offers the wrong challenge the wrong way, that the problem is deeper than just tweaking some numbers as you suggest, and you can agree or disagree.
Well speaking to your original list of things games "don't" need:
Which games need mobs (monsters/elites/bosses/events/situations) which challenge the player? Uh, just about all PVE games worth playing (Ninja Gaiden Black, Deus Ex, D2, ME3, RIFT, WOW, Legend of Grimrock, Defense grid, Civ4)
Which games rely on challenging the player's survivability? Again, all PVE games worth playing challenge your survivability in various ways because if your survivability wasn't threatened then failure wouldn't be possible and there really wouldn't be a game (Ninja Gaiden Black, Deus Ex, D2, ME3, RIFT, WOW, Legend of Grimrock, Defense Grid, Civ4)
Which games need a progression system to be fun? Not all PVE games, but all RPGs from my list (Deus Ex, D2, ME3, RIFT, WOW, Legend of Grimrock, Civ4)
If I pay $60 it doesn't matter who it goes to, a well-known developer or a newbie, if the game is fun for a full month it's certainly worth it. Now obviously in the back of every player's mind (whether they realize it or not) they're keeping tabs on how long each game lasts and (assuming they build up enough association between the game and the developer name, which not every player does) they're going to judge their next game purchase decision based on how much fun they had. So again, there's risk to Blizzard's reputation by releasing a game which didn't last years and years, but at face value the game is still better than 80-90% of what gets released.
Certainly with my two comments you originally replied to (both enrage timers and inferno's difficulty being good for the game) D3 would have certainly been worse off without them.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Title kind says it all, i was a huge fan of diablo, diablo 1 was the first game i ever played online and that was around 15-16 years ago.When diablo 2 was released i also bought it and had alot of fun with it sometimes i actually reinstall it just to play around a bit.
I was a bit worried about buying diablo 3 given the ridiculous amount of time it took to finally be released and how unsure the release date was gonna be.That kind pushed me of buying it right away because someone had to be wrong for it to be taking that long.Im really glad i didnt buy it based on all the negative comments i saw from other gamers, i would like u to direct u all to this thread: http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/6037265679?page=1 This is from blizzards own forum and majority of the users seem to agree with everything the OP said.
With that said what are your thoughts about the game? Do u believe all that negative feedback will cause some sort of change in the gaming development by blizzard or any other company or blizzard just made their quick buck and will keep using this bussness model?
Just think it's funny how you acknowledge how long it took to make the game and then you add the pithi comment of making a 'quick' buck.
Title kind says it all, i was a huge fan of diablo, diablo 1 was the first game i ever played online and that was around 15-16 years ago.When diablo 2 was released i also bought it and had alot of fun with it sometimes i actually reinstall it just to play around a bit.
I was a bit worried about buying diablo 3 given the ridiculous amount of time it took to finally be released and how unsure the release date was gonna be.That kind pushed me of buying it right away because someone had to be wrong for it to be taking that long.Im really glad i didnt buy it based on all the negative comments i saw from other gamers, i would like u to direct u all to this thread: http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/6037265679?page=1 This is from blizzards own forum and majority of the users seem to agree with everything the OP said.
With that said what are your thoughts about the game? Do u believe all that negative feedback will cause some sort of change in the gaming development by blizzard or any other company or blizzard just made their quick buck and will keep using this bussness model?
Just think it's funny how you acknowledge how long it took to make the game and then you add the pithi comment of making a 'quick' buck.
I hope you see the irony there
Yep. And if you let the credits roll and you see the countless number of people, world wide, who put their heart and soul into creating this game just to have some entitled teenager say "played it 10 minutes and uninstalled"...it just breaks my heart.
Just think it's funny how you acknowledge how long it took to make the game and then you add the pithi comment of making a 'quick' buck.
I hope you see the irony there
Just because it was in development for a long time does not mean they worked on it the entire time. It went through several iterations. Ideas were scrapped and newer ones were fleshed out. It was probably put on hold a few times as well before announcing they were working on it officially.
I'd say "quick buck" isn't the correct term. More like making money for the sake of making money. Not being the by product of making a good product.
The state of D3 is messy and still unfinished feature wise. Look at what was promised and what is still not implemented. If nothing else, it shows that Blizzard may not look at D3 as an mmo, but they produce and implement it like one. As in, launch it now and patch in the rest later.
In my opinion, they are one step from their next evolution. Launching games with features later added a la carte with a cost for each. Enforced via always online design/account flags to enable.
Well speaking to your original list of things games "don't" need:
Which games need mobs (monsters/elites/bosses/events/situations) which challenge the player? Uh, just about all PVE games worth playing (Ninja Gaiden Black, Deus Ex, D2, ME3, RIFT, WOW, Legend of Grimrock, Defense grid, Civ4)
Which games rely on challenging the player's survivability? Again, all PVE games worth playing challenge your survivability in various ways because if your survivability wasn't threatened then failure wouldn't be possible and there really wouldn't be a game (Ninja Gaiden Black, Deus Ex, D2, ME3, RIFT, WOW, Legend of Grimrock, Defense Grid, Civ4)
Which games need a progression system to be fun? Not all PVE games, but all RPGs from my list (Deus Ex, D2, ME3, RIFT, WOW, Legend of Grimrock, Civ4)
If I pay $60 it doesn't matter who it goes to, a well-known developer or a newbie, if the game is fun for a full month it's certainly worth it. Now obviously in the back of every player's mind (whether they realize it or not) they're keeping tabs on how long each game lasts and (assuming they build up enough association between the game and the developer name, which not every player does) they're going to judge their next game purchase decision based on how much fun they had. So again, there's risk to Blizzard's reputation by releasing a game which didn't last years and years, but at face value the game is still better than 80-90% of what gets released.
Certainly with my two comments you originally replied to (both enrage timers and inferno's difficulty being good for the game) D3 would have certainly been worse off without them.
And again you are evading into generics.
The question is not "which games have mobs that challenge the player", the question is "which games have mobs that challenge the player in very specific ways, being superior to the player and having a arbitrary timeout set on them", yes you correctly mention some mmos, it is a mmo system without the mmo fluff ==> much less appealing.
The question is not "which games rely on survivability", the question is "which games challenge the players survivability to the point that he cannot kill a enemy the way he wants and/or this survivability comes from a very restricted gear and skill system, with no way to "cheat", because it is seen as "unbalanced"".
The question is not "which games need progression", but "which games define progression as continuosly roadblocking the player". When did gear checks and forced decisions become a "rpg element" ?
As for the 60$, thanks for agreeing with me
Where do you get the certainty that they would be worse off? I have my example, d2, which was pretty good off without them.
It is quite sad that only your last sentence was to the point at hand, the rest being <random lemon> is good because it is a car and other cars have the similar features, like wheels, windows, steering wheel...
Enrage timers are not a challenge. They are the same as putting a count down timer on the boss to despawn/reset. The only purpose they exist for is a gear/dps check. They add no new dynamic to how you defeat the encounter, just the time you are allowed to do so in.
The question is not "which games have mobs that challenge the player", the question is "which games have mobs that challenge the player in very specific ways, being superior to the player and having a arbitrary timeout set on them", yes you correctly mention some mmos, it is a mmo system without the mmo fluff ==> much less appealing.
The question is not "which games rely on survivability", the question is "which games challenge the players survivability to the point that he cannot kill a enemy the way he wants and/or this survivability comes from a very restricted gear and skill system, with no way to "cheat", because it is seen as "unbalanced"".
The question is not "which games need progression", but "which games define progression as continuosly roadblocking the player". When did gear checks and forced decisions become a "rpg element" ?
As for the 60$, thanks for agreeing with me
Where do you get the certainty that they would be worse off? I have my example, d2, which was pretty good off without them.
It is quite sad that only your last sentence was to the point at hand, the rest being is good because it is a car and other cars have the similar features, like wheels, windows, steering wheel...
D3 pursued a loftier goal than typical singleplayer RPGs: longer playtime. In order to accomplish this, it couldn't use the same old "play it once: you're done" mechanics typical SRPGs use. So it used mechanics typically only found in MMORPGs.
Enrage timers is one new mechanic previously only found in MMORPGs like WOW. It helps draw a hard and obvious line between mobs you're geared for and those you aren't, which is important (but inevitably not sufficient in D3's case) to prevent a game from being purely about defensive/healing builds and slowly widdling down any mob.
The same "longer playtime" goal drives survivability's importance, although in this case it's actually because mechanics like enrage aren't strong enough that survivability is a stronger playstyle than it should be, relative to the other playstyles. Although the requirements of a baseline amount of survivability gear is simply part of the goal of creating a game with longer playtime.
And again, the same "longer playtime" goal drives progression's importance. Instead of ending at the end of the story (as most other SRPGs do), the game tries to remain interesting longer than that. Progresison is a big part of that. Again, it inevitably isn't sufficient for D3, but it's clearly the goal. Working against this goal are things like (a) the frequency with which you have to repeat the storyline and (b) the lack of randomness to playthroughs, and a lot of other little things. But those mistakes are the failures, not the emphasis on progression.
See? Ask specific questions: get specific answers. Funny how that works.
D2 wasn't that great off without these elements. In fact there was basically no reason to play any character past level 35 or so because it became a rather shallow gear grind beyond that point and your character's playstyle was essentially locked (which was both an advantage and a disadvantage, given that the rigid progression system was also the reason that I rolled a lot of alts in that game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
D3 pursued a loftier goal than typical singleplayer RPGs: longer playtime. In order to accomplish this, it couldn't use the same old "play it once: you're done" mechanics typical SRPGs use. So it used mechanics typically only found in MMORPGs.
Enrage timers is one new mechanic previously only found in MMORPGs like WOW. It helps draw a hard and obvious line between mobs you're geared for and those you aren't, which is important (but inevitably not sufficient in D3's case) to prevent a game from being purely about defensive/healing builds and slowly widdling down any mob.
The same "longer playtime" goal drives survivability's importance, although in this case it's actually because mechanics like enrage aren't strong enough that survivability is a stronger playstyle than it should be, relative to the other playstyles. Although the requirements of a baseline amount of survivability gear is simply part of the goal of creating a game with longer playtime.
And again, the same "longer playtime" goal drives progression's importance. Instead of ending at the end of the story (as most other SRPGs do), the game tries to remain interesting longer than that. Progresison is a big part of that. Again, it inevitably isn't sufficient for D3, but it's clearly the goal. Working against this goal are things like (a) the frequency with which you have to repeat the storyline and (b) the lack of randomness to playthroughs, and a lot of other little things. But those mistakes are the failures, not the emphasis on progression.
See? Ask specific questions: get specific answers. Funny how that works.
D2 wasn't that great off without these elements. In fact there was basically no reason to play any character past level 35 or so because it became a rather shallow gear grind beyond that point and your character's playstyle was essentially locked (which was both an advantage and a disadvantage, given that the rigid progression system was also the reason that I rolled a lot of alts in that game.)
"D3 pursued a loftier goal", do you actually read what you write? Oh look, there is the 35 again, do you actually remember anything else about d2?
We are not discussing goals, we are discussing the way they were pursuing them, which was the cheapest and most simple possible way, road blocking. That you yourself are a developer and you see no other way to achieve longevity, and heck, you dont even SEE the longevity that was achieved in the past by different means is disappointing, but not really suprising.
I recently watched a video by kripparrian, where he talked about making a more lasting endgame, and while i applaud the effort, all he was suggesting was the old excel sheet programmers solution "lets let players grind another 5% of power, now for 400% of time", so a solution that will sell just the illusion of having something to do, but have no gameplay impact, a lazy programmers solution, just implement something that will have no impact, so we dont have to balance it.
"D3 pursued a loftier goal", do you actually read what you write? Oh look, there is the 35 again, do you actually remember anything else about d2?
We are not discussing goals, we are discussing the way they were pursuing them, which was the cheapest and most simple possible way, road blocking. That you yourself are a developer and you see no other way to achieve longevity, and heck, you dont even SEE the longevity that was achieved in the past by different means is disappointing, but not really suprising.
Yeah, we're discussing the way they pursued a goal.
Although I don't quite understand where you feel I'm saying their way is the only way to pursue that goal. Of course there are other ways to pursue a goal. But when you talk about someone who used a car to get to a destination, you don't sandbag the conversation by discussing how they could've used an airplane instead -- they're at the destination, they reached the goal, what does it matter?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yeah, we're discussing the way they pursued a goal.
Although I don't quite understand where you feel I'm saying their way is the only way to pursue that goal. Of course there are other ways to pursue a goal. But when you talk about someone who used a car to get to a destination, you don't sandbag the conversation by discussing how they could've used an airplane instead -- they're at the destination, they reached the goal, what does it matter?
Well, have they reached the goal? I really think we dont even agree on that one (or the state they have arrived in ), see the 60$ part.
However it does not help if you dismiss the plane off the bat by saying "planes never worked", like you are dismissing d2, or most other design/challenge/game system philosophies by claiming that they were never good and successful in a history-rewriting fashion, or them being bad design together with claiming that "the game would be much worse off".
That is why i have the feeling that you take this approach the devs used (in d3 and wow) as the only valid one.
Well, have they reached the goal? I really think we dont even agree on that one (or the state they have arrived in ), see the 60$ part.
However it does not help if you dismiss the plane off the bat by saying "planes never worked", like you are dismissing d2, or most other design/challenge/game system philosophies by claiming that they were never good and successful in a history-rewriting fashion, or them being bad design together with claiming that "the game would be much worse off".
That is why i have the feeling that you take this approach the devs used (in d3 and wow) as the only valid one.
They didn't reach the goal, on account of a few specific mistakes which could be improved upon.
But instead of focusing on fixing those particular mistakes you seem to be taking the "they should just completely redesign the game to be more like D2" angle, which obviously wouldn't be a good idea in D3's current state.
That simply wasn't the route they chose. I haven't said anything remotely like "planes never worked", I'm simply trying to explain to you that they took a car and they're not going to completely change the game at this point.
If you're on a road trip and get a flat, it's completely useless to say "fuck we should've taken a plane". Instead you fix the flat and keep driving. Both travel methods get you to your destination, but once you've chosen one method you stick with it and deal with the associated problems.
In this case D3 just needs to fix the flat; moaning about how they should've taken a plane doesn't help them at all.
Several pieces of D3 could be made more D2-like, and those were covered pretty well in my first post of the thread. But you fixated on a couple rather irrelevant portions of that post of mine (enrages and hard inferno) which really aren't the game's major problems at all.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
Next expansion release not all that far away; and then all will be forgiven.
Why doesn't the public evaluate new things on a per-case (instead of a per-reputation) basis? We know from decades of bitter experience that a company/studios last effort is an extraordinarily poor predictor of their next effort.
Marketing works too well, particularly on those who believe themselves immune to it.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Fastest game returned in history? Multiple Law suits from different companies? Haven't broken even from Diablo 3? People quitting left and right? And bash admitting to people returning the game?
Yeah please allow me to inform you that you are more than welcome to come back to reality. Were do you get your facts from? Random people in some chat room that are also spreading these rumors? This stuff just makes me laugh. Someone just randomly shooting out rumors like there facts then beleiving in them like there true.
Fact, there is A law suit going on in EU for Diablo 3. Fact, people are slowiy not logging into Diablo but theres still a good portion playing, just not as much. Fact, it is not that fastest returned game in history, theres another game that has that title and I doubt they will ever lose it. Fact, no one knows what they have made off Diablo 3 if anything. They have yet to release any numbers except for first week sales. And Bash never admitted to anything, if he did please inform all of us by providing a link to this admission which I'm sure you cant find at this exact moment, right? Please just stop, I'm sure people get it, you do not like Diablo 3.
First off, in my opinion, Diablo 3 is a decent game. It keeps me entertained for the time I play it and I can play with my friends. I don't make my hobbies a chore, which some of you seem to do. I just enjoy having fun in a game. I have a level 60 DH on Inferno Act 3 and a level 54 Monk on Hell Act 3. Is it what I expected it should be after playing Diablo 2, nope. Does that bother me, nope. Why? Because its a different team, and a different vision. Whats so wrong with that. I don't want to play a Daiblo 2 with modern graphics and fresher systems. If i did, I would just go by Diablo 2 and hack up a mod. I paid my money to play a new game, with new systems and a new vision. And I got it. Some of you are just sitting to far into the past and won't let go. Games and play styles change and evolve. So do the companies that deliver these things, If they just kept pumping out old visions and concepts, gaming would be a stagnant money maker and developers would move on. So, there you have it my opinion. Like it or hate it, its mine, not yours.
No. I think they take risks. RMAH is a huge risk and they know it.
Personally, i like it. Real money won't devalue like gold.
And the game is really fun. Good combat system. Good production values.
Personally that critique is not valid to me. Because
a) killing mobs and find a valuable item is fun ... it is much more frustrating to get a perfect DH item while i am running a wiz (and no i don't have multiple 60s to use all the good stuff i get),
b) i agree .. we need more filters on AH. It needs to be done better ... better yet, it should be on the web.
c) Yeah, but it is fun to find a good deal (and good upgrades) on the AH
You have something against Dairy Queen?
I knew I should have taken that left turn at Albuquerque...
I think those that think there is overwhelmingly negative on Diablo 3 feedback are too biased. I saw the OP's link to the D3 forums, I followed it... 26 page long thread. Versus... Blizzards attempt to reach out to the community to see how they can fix various gameplay annoyances (MF gear swap) is currently over 900 pages long. So as far as a community base goes 26 page thread is <10% of those active in the Blizzard community. So if 5% of the people who like your game hate it? You're doing pretty damn awesome, thats 95% positive.
I think those unhappy with the game is a very loud minority, so was it a wake up call? Nope not a chance. Overwhelmingly the response to the game has been positive. I feel bad that you did not buy the game based on negative feedback on forums such as these. I have not seen a single game released ever that has not gotten slammed by threads on these boards.
"They essentially want to say 'Correlation proves Causation' when it's just not true." - Sovrath
Some other games have already solved (A) by simply not letting gear drop which isn't for your class. (Which you could clearly expand in a multiplayer game to have extra things drop so you can have that little bit of mid-game trading fun.)
Filters don't solve (B). We're comparing a UI vs. a game. The AH UI is never going to be as fun as playing Diablo's combat. Yet the game forces you to interact with it a lot. It's sub-optimal design. Please recall how many WOW upgrades you received in (1) fun gameplay vs. (2) AH UI. They hit the mix right in that game, where very few upgrades came from the AH. The tragedy is that these two games (WOW and D3) come from the same company.
(C) It's not that fun to find a good deal. Certainly not as fun as playing the game itself.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I already did, you have just chosen what to attack, luckily it was not my point
There are different forms of challenge and combat, just because we have this kind of challenge in d3 (small groups of mobs more powerful than your character to the point that occasionally they have more skills numerically than your character) does not mean it is the only way just because it IS a form of challenge and combat. Similar survivability, is it really important to basically force defensive stuff on the player, because he will be unable to kill anything, instead of secondary considerations (exp loss, gold loss, or simply making the fight more enjoyable) being the main drive to be more durable?
As for linear progression, it is random linear progression if you want
, a lv 40 item will in general not have the same amount of a stat as a lv 60 item because the chance to get 75% of a possible stat is roughly the same in the grand scale of things (due to spreads having increased minimums, too), outside of considering a excellent lv 40 item vs a very bad lv 60 item. It is very visible on stuff like crit chance, at lv 40 you get 3-3.5%, at lv 60 you get 5-6.5%, that makes the item hunt on alts extremely unfun, in reality you have no chance to find anything useful for your main and due to the randomness even for the alt before you hit lv 60. Wow works the same way, except for the randomness, this being a point of many discussions "if the mobs are as hard as heroic/raid bosses, shouldnt they drop the same guaranteed good (if not always usefull for anyone) loot?".
Flame on!
I guess I don't remember where anyone said only one specific type of challenge matters. When I say challenge I mean all challenge (or rather: all enjoyable challenge.)
Survivability is one such challenge and there's nothing wrong with the way it's implemented in D3 apart from its value raising a bit abruptly in relation to other stats.
But you basically walked through the list of every single way D3 offers challenge and implied "we don't need this", when in fact all of those challenges are why D3 is at least as fun as it is.
Are you suggesting D3 should've been a completely different game? What's the point of that? These types of games work and are tons of fun when balanced correctly.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Seems to me that the people that are complaining should consider Hell difficulty their end game and leave Inferno for those who actually enjoy the game.
Hell mode is still challenging if you don't cheese it and buy Inferno gear off the AH. The best part of the game is "finally" getting those sweet drops. You'll probably never get the perfect drop, but if you haven't upgraded everything via the AH then you'll get plenty of upgrades from drops.
I really question whether those that complain about thegame really like these hack-n-slash dungeon crawlers. People say thinks like "I don't like repetition" when that's what these games are! Not just D3 but Torchlight and all the other Diablo clones.
(Hopefully this post was nice enough so I don't get another warning...)
"These types of games", which ones, name another two which have the features we are arguing about.
You are again escaping into generics, because a <random lemon> is a car does not mean it is a good car just because you think cars are good things.
The meaning of arpg or diablo clone or diablo series does not magically change once they release another game.
"Fun as it is", it could have been MORE fun, especially since the past games WERE more fun, while you got your month for 60 bucks it does not mean it is ok, for a game of a very successful series, from a very successful developer.
In essence i am saying, that in my opinion the game offers the wrong challenge the wrong way, that the problem is deeper than just tweaking some numbers as you suggest, and you can agree or disagree.
Flame on!
The problem is we are not hacking and slashing, we are kiting and dying and browsing the ah.
Flame on!
Well speaking to your original list of things games "don't" need:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Just think it's funny how you acknowledge how long it took to make the game and then you add the pithi comment of making a 'quick' buck.
I hope you see the irony there
What the hell does Blizzard CARE about the "end game" of Diablo 3?
They don't give a crap!
All of you who bought it, bought their game! Thats it! Done! They got their money!
Yep. And if you let the credits roll and you see the countless number of people, world wide, who put their heart and soul into creating this game just to have some entitled teenager say "played it 10 minutes and uninstalled"...it just breaks my heart.
:-(
Just because it was in development for a long time does not mean they worked on it the entire time. It went through several iterations. Ideas were scrapped and newer ones were fleshed out. It was probably put on hold a few times as well before announcing they were working on it officially.
I'd say "quick buck" isn't the correct term. More like making money for the sake of making money. Not being the by product of making a good product.
The state of D3 is messy and still unfinished feature wise. Look at what was promised and what is still not implemented. If nothing else, it shows that Blizzard may not look at D3 as an mmo, but they produce and implement it like one. As in, launch it now and patch in the rest later.
In my opinion, they are one step from their next evolution. Launching games with features later added a la carte with a cost for each. Enforced via always online design/account flags to enable.
And again you are evading into generics.
Enrage timers are not a challenge. They are the same as putting a count down timer on the boss to despawn/reset. The only purpose they exist for is a gear/dps check. They add no new dynamic to how you defeat the encounter, just the time you are allowed to do so in.
D3 pursued a loftier goal than typical singleplayer RPGs: longer playtime. In order to accomplish this, it couldn't use the same old "play it once: you're done" mechanics typical SRPGs use. So it used mechanics typically only found in MMORPGs.
Enrage timers is one new mechanic previously only found in MMORPGs like WOW. It helps draw a hard and obvious line between mobs you're geared for and those you aren't, which is important (but inevitably not sufficient in D3's case) to prevent a game from being purely about defensive/healing builds and slowly widdling down any mob.
The same "longer playtime" goal drives survivability's importance, although in this case it's actually because mechanics like enrage aren't strong enough that survivability is a stronger playstyle than it should be, relative to the other playstyles. Although the requirements of a baseline amount of survivability gear is simply part of the goal of creating a game with longer playtime.
And again, the same "longer playtime" goal drives progression's importance. Instead of ending at the end of the story (as most other SRPGs do), the game tries to remain interesting longer than that. Progresison is a big part of that. Again, it inevitably isn't sufficient for D3, but it's clearly the goal. Working against this goal are things like (a) the frequency with which you have to repeat the storyline and (b) the lack of randomness to playthroughs, and a lot of other little things. But those mistakes are the failures, not the emphasis on progression.
See? Ask specific questions: get specific answers. Funny how that works.
D2 wasn't that great off without these elements. In fact there was basically no reason to play any character past level 35 or so because it became a rather shallow gear grind beyond that point and your character's playstyle was essentially locked (which was both an advantage and a disadvantage, given that the rigid progression system was also the reason that I rolled a lot of alts in that game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"D3 pursued a loftier goal", do you actually read what you write? Oh look, there is the 35 again, do you actually remember anything else about d2?
We are not discussing goals, we are discussing the way they were pursuing them, which was the cheapest and most simple possible way, road blocking. That you yourself are a developer and you see no other way to achieve longevity, and heck, you dont even SEE the longevity that was achieved in the past by different means is disappointing, but not really suprising.
I recently watched a video by kripparrian, where he talked about making a more lasting endgame, and while i applaud the effort, all he was suggesting was the old excel sheet programmers solution "lets let players grind another 5% of power, now for 400% of time", so a solution that will sell just the illusion of having something to do, but have no gameplay impact, a lazy programmers solution, just implement something that will have no impact, so we dont have to balance it.
You have all become products of the system.
Lets agree to disagree, peace out.
Flame on!
Yeah, we're discussing the way they pursued a goal.
Although I don't quite understand where you feel I'm saying their way is the only way to pursue that goal. Of course there are other ways to pursue a goal. But when you talk about someone who used a car to get to a destination, you don't sandbag the conversation by discussing how they could've used an airplane instead -- they're at the destination, they reached the goal, what does it matter?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well, have they reached the goal? I really think we dont even agree on that one (or the state they have arrived in
), see the 60$ part.
However it does not help if you dismiss the plane off the bat by saying "planes never worked", like you are dismissing d2, or most other design/challenge/game system philosophies by claiming that they were never good and successful in a history-rewriting fashion, or them being bad design together with claiming that "the game would be much worse off".
That is why i have the feeling that you take this approach the devs used (in d3 and wow) as the only valid one.
Flame on!
doublepost
They didn't reach the goal, on account of a few specific mistakes which could be improved upon.
But instead of focusing on fixing those particular mistakes you seem to be taking the "they should just completely redesign the game to be more like D2" angle, which obviously wouldn't be a good idea in D3's current state.
That simply wasn't the route they chose. I haven't said anything remotely like "planes never worked", I'm simply trying to explain to you that they took a car and they're not going to completely change the game at this point.
If you're on a road trip and get a flat, it's completely useless to say "fuck we should've taken a plane". Instead you fix the flat and keep driving. Both travel methods get you to your destination, but once you've chosen one method you stick with it and deal with the associated problems.
In this case D3 just needs to fix the flat; moaning about how they should've taken a plane doesn't help them at all.
Several pieces of D3 could be made more D2-like, and those were covered pretty well in my first post of the thread. But you fixated on a couple rather irrelevant portions of that post of mine (enrages and hard inferno) which really aren't the game's major problems at all.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver