Blizzard Details Diablo Update, Admits Players Prefer SP

By Nathan Grayson on August 11th, 2012 at 2:00 pm.

Maybe my armor will be updated such that it doesn't block my line of sight and render me completely blind in the heat of battle. Fingers crossed!

Time for another round of good news/utterly mystifying news. First up, Blizzard’s detailed Diablo III update 1.0.4, and it sounds like – at the very least – its heart is in the right place. The rather hefty patch is meant to stitch up some of the hell-themed hack ‘n’ slash’s biggest trouble spots – for instance, the snooze-inducing weakness of normal enemies, a lack of excitement in item identification, and certain wimpy, underused skills. So that’s the good. And the utterly mystifying? That award goes to the part where Blizzard’s Wyatt Cheng outright states that solo play is the “clear choice” of Diablo players, which is apparently a problem. [Note: this post has been visited by the update fairy! Go past the break for details.]

This, of course, suggests that the sort of Diablo experience many players want and the one Blizzard constantly fights to provide are very, very different. And while that was fairly apparent back when Diablo’s always online requirement was announced, there are now raw numbers to back it up. To Blizzard’s credit, its solution to this un-dilemma is to make co-op more enjoyable, but the lack of a simple offline mode becomes more and more baffling by the day. [Update: Blargh, I goofed. While I still think Blizzard should consider other reasons players might prefer flying solo, Cheng’s largely referring to the high-end farming experience here. My knee has since been harshly reprimanded for jerking so irrationally, and it won’t be getting deserts for a whole week.] At any rate, here’s Cheng’s take:

“While many people are playing co-op, it’s still a minority of games. Ideally we would like players who want to play solo to be able to solo, and players who want to play co-op to play co-op. At the moment though playing solo is the clear choice, even for those who would prefer co-op with some of their friends.”

“The first change we’re making in 1.0.4 for co-op is to remove averaging in multiplayer games of Magic Find and Gold Find. You’ll benefit from your full Magic Find stat, independent of other players in the game…. Along the same lines as the change in 1.0.3, we’re going to be lowering the health multiplier for monsters per additional player in co-op games. This makes enemies far more manageable in co-op games, and rewards a co-ordinated group with a higher farming efficiency than playing alone.”

Meanwhile, enemies will also see some big changes, mainly in regard to the gap between normal monsters and elites. In short, normals are gaining health, and elites won’t be quite as damage-spongy as they used to. On top of that, elites are losing Enrage Timers and heal-back-to-full abilities, because Blizzard deemed those bits more frustrating than fun. Next up, high-level weapons are having their damage ceilings raised, so as to give some viability back to weapon drops.

As for underused skills, Blizzard plans to detail them individually on a class-by-class basis. But the general philosophy behind the tinkerings sounds, well, sound. Basically, polish and buff – don’t heap nerf-flavored rust on the good stuff to make sure the whole arsenal’s equally mediocre.

So that’s nice to hear. Surely, though, most of you have left Tristram for greener pastures by now, right? I mean, if any other developer was talking about improving its game’s farming experience – well, aside from maybe Zynga or Natsume – to keep max level players from following their wanderlust, it’d be a sign that the game’s run its course. Diablo’s fun for 60-100 hours. That’s fantastic! Far more than most games. And what happens after that? Well, you move on.

, .

217 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. Syra says:

    And still no pvp, banner upgrades etc?

    Lost the plot much?

    • Azradesh says:

      PvP is going to be patch 1.1, just as it has been since they lauched, this has not changed.

      • Premium User Badge

        frymaster says:

        which tells you nothing, since you don’t know how many 1.0.x patches there’s going to be, or how often they’ll be released

        • RvLeshrac says:

          When Blizzard hits 1.0.1826795441638 at some point in 2016, Azradesh & co. will still be saying “They promised it would be in 1.1, it’ll still be in 1.1!”

          • Bhazor says:

            Diablo fanatics? A curious bunch. The only way to win an argument with one is not to talk to them.

          • Phantoon says:

            Would you like to play a game of Thermonuclear War instead? It’s more satisfying.

          • Ironclad says:

            Why, I’d love to play a game of Defcon.

          • TheIronSky says:

            I can attest to that about Diablo fans being impossible to argue with. I once joined a public chat room (the first and only time I will ever make that mistake). A fellow in there was complaining about how much crap was filling the RMAH. He said that it was Blizzard’s fault and they needed to fix it, and he was awfully whiny about it. So I replied and said, “But I think it’s quite alright – it has filters that you can use to cut through the crap.” He then thought it necessary to call me a twelve-year-old, then pass it off as though it weren’t an insult, and then continue to verbally assault me about my opinion. I finally gave in and said, “Well, you didn’t have to be such a belligerent jackass about it.”

            It was too much for him. His head must’ve exploded, because he bitched about my use of the word “jackass,” and proceeded on to both report and block me. Numerous times. And then explain to me in detail every step of the process while I remained completely silent, enjoying my single-player Diablofest.

            Fun bunch, those Diablo fans are.

          • Catalept says:

            Heh. Yeah. People that like things that I do not like are so dumb. Look at them. Ha ha.

          • Jerakal says:

            Haters are a curious bunch, the only way to win an argument with them is not to talk to them.

          • cHeal says:

            Yes, Diablo fans are truly one of the worst fanboys I have ever encountered. Shockingly immature.

          • Neut says:

            @Bhazor

            And yet here you are in every single Diablo post on RPS.

          • mouton says:

            He is not arguing, though, just laughing his ass off.

  2. Palodin says:

    Oh, well done Blizzard. You figured out what everyone already knew months after the fact.

    • malkav11 says:

      But just think, they would never have been able to get that data if they hadn’t forced everyone online!

      Sigh.

      • Lagwolf says:

        Tres’ ironic.

        • Bhazor says:

          It was almost worth all this just for the wonderful irony.
          “We forced everyone to play online and in conclusion we found out that people would rather not play online”

          • Ragnar says:

            That’s not what they found at all. They found that people wanted to play co-op, but the game mechanics made playing solo the optimum way to play because the best geared player is effectively penalized. Sadly, the change in 1.04 does nothing to fix this problem, as now instead of leeching MF group members will be leeching DPS.

            Giving an MF bonus for each additional player would encourage co-op play since the best geared player would get a bonus in exchange for helping the less geared players.

      • Iskariot says:

        Well, they did not force me online.
        I refused to buy the game. And I never will if it doesn’t have an offline mode.
        I am a big fan of Diablo, but I am not at all interested in any form of multi player, coöp or whatever.
        And I know I am not the only one who skipped the game because of this always online nonsense.

        • BrendanJB says:

          Indeed you aren’t. My two housemates and I also skipped the game; as did about 4-5 of my friends.

        • socrate says:

          D2 is still better in every aspect and player are more numerous in D2 then in D3 nowadays anyway.

          i really don’t get people that didn’t move on to something else,my 200 friend list as 2 playing D3 and i am pretty sure those 2 are botting(i don’t hang out with good people)

      • Nerv says:

        Claiming they would never have found out single player was the most popular unless they forced everyone online is incorrect, they could easily do : units sold – Unique accounts logged in/character progress = how popular offline is.

        • Premium User Badge

          jrodman says:

          While a nice idea: what about people who shared the game, or people who never bothered to play it at all? Or people who bought it but didn’t have regular internet at the time, but would have played online if they did?

          I mean, I think you could have projected that mostly the game was successful as a solo affair, but it’s not *quite* so trivial as you suggest.

    • Ghoulie says:

      But certainly it’s only a vocal minority of people who want to play their single-player games with a minimum of having to wade through an ocean of crap?
      Certainly Diablo 2 was primarily played online and everyone who wanted to enjoy it as a single-player has no life and needs friends?

      • HisMastersVoice says:

        You cruel man…

      • subedii says:

        Indeed. In fact whenever the topic came up, I recall countless individuals yelling out “Don’t treat this as a singleplayer game! Diablo 3 is an MMO, why can you not see that?!”

        It is all the more unfortunate that after that attitude, it turns out that Diablo 3 might not, in fact, be an MMO.

        • Azradesh says:

          I don’t think anyone with a brain called it an MMO. Many people however did say that it was a multi player focused game and that most people played it that way, or some other such bollocks.

          • malkav11 says:

            Plenty of people said “well, (insert name of MMO here) requires you to be always online, and you seem to be okay with that. How is this different?”

          • Azradesh says:

            I did say, “anyone with a brain”. :P

          • Iskariot says:

            Azradesh, Subedii is using something called ‘irony’ or perhaps even ‘sarcasm’.

          • Premium User Badge

            jrodman says:

            And in turn, our friend az is using agreement.

      • -Norbert- says:

        Diablo SP players a not the vocal minority (neither vocal nor minorty it would seem).
        Blizzard didn’t make the above statement by counting how many hate-mails they got from each group. They checked their ingame server stats and saw that more people played alone than with others.
        And considering they stated that “single player is the clear choice” I guess it wasn’t even a close call.

      • ScubaMonster says:

        I highly doubt this is an assumption made by Blizzard based on forum goers and the like. They have the raw data on their own servers for the ratio of multiplayer vs. singleplayer games since even singleplayer is connected online.

        Edit – I should have read Norbert’s post first :P Mine is redundant.

    • DrOwn says:

      They knew all along though. Just wanted DRM.

    • hosndosn says:

      They always knew. They just wanted to force people into online more because it’s easier to control and to keep people addicted from a business point of few. I’m so happy to see they failed.

      Diablo III and all Blizzard games are soulless corporate crap. Not an ounce of genuine passion for gamedesign to be found, just how to keep people addicted through mathematical balance measures.

      • Arglebargle says:

        Yeah, they knew this since Diablo2. They disregarded it, probably due to the lure of extra moneys from enforced online play. And since they were setting it up to make money, they designed it so you’d need to use those money making aspects of the game.

        They’ve got a fanbase that will buy anything at all from them, so as a business decision, it might be good (in the evil bean counter mode). I didn’t care for Diablo 3 that much in Beta, so its no go from me. Plenty of more interesting alternatives up or on the horizon.

        • Kablooie says:

          I’m neither fanboi nor hater. I did buy the game, and to date have put 250+ hours into it. But I’m not playing anymore. The one thing they haven’t addressed is the abysmal drop rate for Inferno level gear. I don’t know if they ever will – it keeps peoples going back to the RMAH to buy it (something I won’t do).

          The patch does look promising (oh, how I hated the “Enrage Timer” and autoheal), but, still, nothing about Magic Find and drop rates.

          So as it stands, there’s NWN2, Dungeons of Dredmor, and, hey, a new expansion for Skyrim (yay!) for me.

    • Baines says:

      No, no they didn’t. Not really.

      “At the moment though playing solo is the clear choice, even for those who would prefer co-op with some of their friends.”

      For Blizzard, this isn’t about people who want to play solo. It is about people who want to play co-op, but are playing solo because they don’t like the way Diablo III handles co-op.

      • Ragnar says:

        Exactly! Currently the optimum way to get new / better gear is to run alone. 1.04 will make it so that you can run in a group and not be terribly slowed down by the process.

        Unfortunately, the MF change in 1.04 hurts this.
        In 1.03, high MF people didn’t want to play in groups because those without high MF gear would lower their MF. Not an issue if you’re all friends and share your gear, and not really an issue since both MF and DPS are averaged, but people with high MF / high DPS geared complained all the same.

        In 1.04, MF is no longer averaged, but DPS will still be averaged. Thus, those with high DPS won’t benefit from, or want to play with, those with high MF but low DPS because those people will slow down their rate of killing without giving them the benefit of sharing their MF. Again, not a problem for friends who all share gear, but a problem in public games where high DPS geared players won’t want to play with lower DPS geared players that have MF.

        In effect, they took a problem, and then made it worse.

  3. TheMrSolaris says:

    I am calling it, Blizzard doesn’t know how to make games anymore. Like George Lucas doesn’t know how to make a movie anymore.

    • .backslash says:

      I wouldn’t go that far, I seem to remember having fun with Starcraft 2, however their attitude towards customers seems to be very much spoiled by WoW. Both in the aspect of ‘you need us more than we need you, little nerd, we own your life, so shut up and take it’ and ‘stay and play our game for ever and ever and ever and etc.’

      • Walsh says:

        Uh what? They’ve owned up to the fact they didn’t expect nerds to whine about the lack of end game content. They have only one reason to keep people playing and that’s RMAH. But an optional feature won’t make them a ton of money.

        • Azradesh says:

          I hate this nonsense about “end game”. End game needs to stay in MMOs. Play the game and then when you are finished/not having fun anymore then play another!

          • Vorphalack says:

            D3 is designed around a repetitive item hunt in a similar manner to most loot progression MMOs. You may not like the word association, but they SHOULD be trying to make that an interesting activity.

          • Premium User Badge

            slerbal says:

            Agreed! As someone who doesn’t play MMOs I don’t even know what an “end game” is in this context. All the language used in describing Diablo 3 made it clear to me that it was an MMO aimed primarily at players who already played MMOs – they made no real attempt to broaden its appeal. The single player online experience merely confirmed that.

            Ultimately they can do what they want – it is their game – but as a player/consumer I can also do what I want, which in this case was not play it :)

          • Azradesh says:

            It’s not an MMO in the slightest, but people keep expecting MMO thing from it.

          • Baines says:

            The problem is that the RMAH undermines the repetitive item hunt. More so when you consider how Blizzard tried to rig the item hunt/difficulty to prolong gameplay, so that you either had to grind for a while or use the auction house to advance.

            Then include that the game is repetitive and fairly boring after the first play through, and you’ve got a lot of people realizing that they have no reason to keep playing the game.

          • Premium User Badge

            AmateurScience says:

            Not only that but it’s a blatant pay to win strategy in a game that you had to pay for

          • Premium User Badge

            jrodman says:

            The problem with the long item grind at “end game” is there has to be some sort of game to play. That is, you have to have some goals to work towards in order to make the build-up seem interesting for any length of time.

            Sure, some people can find motivation in “get to level eleventy billion”, but not most. In MMOs, the developers put out a series of tiers of more difficult content that included skill checks, gear checks, and coordination checks, and knowledge checks that tested you over a long period of struggle. This was what kept *most* people playing. Some played for the novel of new stuff, some for the challenge, some for camaraderie, some for a sense superiority, and some for just watching numbers tick upwards. Diablo 3 currently only can satisfy the numbers ticking upwards impulse, and all the rest of the people have no attachment to the game in the long haul.

            I *suspect* Blizzard will address this after a fashion with periodic expansions, but cannot predict the future.

            Meanwhile, *today*, there’s just no fun activity to participate in while noodling around at the upper end of the power curve.

          • Sic says:

            This has nothing to do with MMOs.

            Diablo 2 had an interesting end-game, Diablo 3 didn’t.

    • Gesadt says:

      im inclined to think that good movies Lucas did make, were made by accident anyway and with help from good producers co-directors

      • HisMastersVoice says:

        Fun fact – During the making of the original SW trilogy, Lucas was constantly outvoted when it came to creative and director choices by people around him. The Ewoks were his consolation prize.

        Then he went on to make the other trilogy, alone. Go figure…

        • Alexrd says:

          That’s actually not true. At least, not how you’ve putted it.

          • HisMastersVoice says:

            Well, I made up the part about Ewoks. The rest is unfortunately true.

          • Baines says:

            It has enough truth to it. The original trilogy had both technical limits and other people altering Lucas’ “vision”. Other directors, other writers, etc. While Lucas has gone some ways towards erasing his ex-wife’s history, she played a fairly large part in the things that made the original films good. Lucas himself used to admit that he wasn’t a good writer, and that he needed other people. But by the time he got to do the prequel trilogy, he was fully in charge with few people willing to speak out against him.

            Note a similar thing happened with Indiana Jones. Spielberg would say “no” to Lucas’ ideas in the early films, but with Crystal Skull Spielberg didn’t want to say “no” to his friend. (Spielberg spoke about it after the film came out, that his unwillingness to say “no” might have been one of the mistakes he made with the film. Mind, Spielberg himself was part of the problem with Crystal Skull, as his own ideas of the franchise had changed as he aged, particularly the idea that he was now making a kid’s movie.)

          • Arglebargle says:

            Baines has got it. If you ever have a chance to see any of the early scripts of Star Wars ala George, it will show you his major weaknesses and deficits. He was really aided by a bunch of creative associates. Now he’s surrounded by a bunch of sycophants who praise his every thought. As a director, he is far too given to ‘That’s good enough’ shooting of scenes. This leaves the editor with a choice of mediocre elements to work with.

            In Sun Tzu there’s a great epistle about the successful general knowing himself. Lucas now does not know himself well enough to tell when he’s making pedestrian schlock.

        • JoeGuy says:

          Yeah saw that in a documentary. He would have gone off the rails far worse than his remastered works if he didn’t have really sensible, creative people around him for the original trilogy. Shame he didn’t insulate himself for the prequels.

    • hello_mr.Trout says:

      thx was pretty neat – everything after that tho… meh

    • Buemba says:

      Diablo 3 is very good until you reach Inferno. There are problems – good loot drops too rarely, making the AH practically required, and the always online requirement is awful, but the combat in that game is immensely satisfying.

      • TheMrSolaris says:

        Diablo 3 is good until you finished normal, then you find out that nightmare, hell and inferno is the same awful crap that you finished on normal.

        • tetracycloide says:

          That’s the same way D1 and D2 worked…

          • Vorphalack says:

            I bet that a good number of people who bought D3 were not aware of that. D2 is already 12 years old, that’s practically a generation gap.

          • psyk says:

            “I bet that a good number of people who bought D3 were not aware of that. D2 is already 12 years old, that’s practically a generation gap.”

            And?

            HERE TAKE MY MONEY I DON’T KNOW WHAT I’M BUYING BUT I DON’T CARE WOOOOOOO

          • Premium User Badge

            jrodman says:

            And I don’t think most players bothered with that in Diablo 1/2. I certainly didn’t.

            I think the ‘further difficulties’ thing was only really for cooperative. Solo it was pretty dull.

          • socrate says:

            the whole point of nightmare and hell in D2 was for better and more interesting drop…..the itemisation in D3 is the worst part of it…its even worst then borderland which was horrible to start with

            also they moved every rarity to a higher lvl making it have no sense at all…”legendary” are basically rare item from D2 but they are so bad and awful that nobody care about them,then you have the white item that are basically just there to clog your screen with text after that you have the most annoying way of identifying item that made them look like the worst dev ever “unwrapping a gift” seriously are they 12 or mentally retarded did they even play D2…and some stat you get on most item are so awkward that they make no sense at all…then you have the gazillion rare you have to identify and you will find maybe 1% of that useful…not for alt….not for you….no for the Auction House

            and that is just 1 of the problem with the game that is overall the worst game this year….of the decade…of the century,just because they totally scrapped what made the series interesting and awesome and just went with new dev that didn’t even seem to even play the past game

            not even going to get into the continual back and forth decision in beta that made no sense and just made the game lose alots of addition in the end and go waayyy back to its original idea….2 or 3 year of wasted money right there

        • Snakejuice says:

          “good until you finished normal”
          “same awful crap that you finished on normal”

          DOES NOT COMPUTE!

    • tetracycloide says:

      Blizzard can make games just fine. What they can’t seem to do is just let players play. They want to monitor and control them now instead of just letting gameplay happen. I wish they’d stop getting in their own way all the time, the gameplay systems in D3 are all actually pretty decent to play with if they just let you go with them. Problem is they don’t, as soon as you do something new or interesting they have to ‘look into it’ to make sure it’s not an ‘exploit’ or ‘unintended’ behavior. That kind of atmosphere around a game is really stifling.

      • Brise Bonbons says:

        I’d say this is true of almost all contemporary game design. I think it’s baked into the theory, actually.

        Seems to me most designers are too intent on railroading the player into having a perfect, fun gameplay experience. Very few games are about discovering new tricks or finding novel ways to use the game logic; when such “exploits” are discovered, they’re patched out.

        In short, too much control leads to sterile experiences replacing organic highs and lows with a forced roller coaster of carefully paced “fun”.

        Good lord I’m grumpy this morning. :/ Sorry everyone.

        • StingingVelvet says:

          Indeed, modern game design is about being controlled, on rails, presented with an experience rather than creating your own. It’s maddening for someone who really got into games in the Morrowind/Deus Ex era.

          Bethesda, for all the complaints about dumbing their stuff down, at least still allows that creative player freedom.

        • Yglorba says:

          Reminds me of something about Dishonored: In one of the reviews, the devs were explaining about the ‘possession’ power, and the interviewer asked “doesn’t that break the game?”

          Their response? “That’s the point!”

          That made me break into a huge smile, and is the main reason I’m looking forward to that that game. They get it.

          Part of the fun of a game is letting the player feel like they’re doing things for the first time anyone has ever done it, like they’re inventing their own solutions and the like. It might just be suspension of disbelief or something, but it’s important — and games that are too carefully-balanced can lose it.

        • socrate says:

          nah i think you are very lucid, they tend to try and control everything way to much and make us ride a rollercoster instead of giving us a gaming experience.

          and patching really cool stuff even if they weren’t intended instead of working with it is just one of the most stupid thing ever and blizzard are notorious for this now and nerfing even more which imo is pretty much the same effect most of the time.

          instead of buffing other class they go on and nerf the stat

      • JoeGuy says:

        Finding game exploits (taking advantage of certain stats etc. not cheating) use to be pretty cool. Like a reward for figuring out something by trying different builds or approaches. Now they get instantly nerfed. That’s not what games are about, just enjoying the game.

        • Untitled says:

          Yeah, another example is surfing in counter strike, can you imagine if valve patched out that movement physics bug straight away?

    • Shuck says:

      “Blizzard doesn’t know how to make games anymore.”
      Institutions may have memory, but they don’t make games – people do. And the people who made Diablo 1/2 aren’t working at Blizzard anymore (and the studio for which they worked, Blizzard North, doesn’t even exist now). So there’s that.

      • belgand says:

        Yeah, but did you play Hellgate:London? Which was explicitly trying to be an MMORPG version of Diablo II. It was developed largely by the former Blizzard North and it was terrible. At least it seems that the people there who ended up forming Runic and making Torchlight were the ones who knew what they were doing.

        • jimjam says:

          I actually liked Hellgate London. It had a neat idea and was graphically good. The trouble they had was they tried to do too much and ran out of time & money so they couldn’t complete game balancing & bug fixing. That in turn put people off.

          With D3 it seems to have had the same problems (bugs & balance issues) but it came with pedigree so a lot of twits bought it on the back of that.

          Torchlight is the one i’m playing just as fun, cheaper no online DRM & less fuss.

        • sharkh20 says:

          At the same time they were making Hellgate, they were making Mythos, which before they had to sell, was amazing. The Mythos team went on to go make Torchlight and is now making Torchlight 2.

        • Baines says:

          I’ve only played Hellgate: London after it went free-to-play. I do recall some of the horror stories about the initial release, and I read a blog that a Hellgate player made about his experience with the game. (It was a fairly popular blog at the time, though presumably quite forgotten now.) So I can’t really speak to the original experience, which might have been terrible…

          But the free-to-play wasn’t terrible. It was flawed, but not terrible.

          There also aren’t many games that tried to do what it did, and the others are also flawed. STALKER was apparently rather poor at release. (Though I find playing STALKER with the Complete mod still leaves things to be desired. Fun, but still flawed.) Borderlands may have had millions of weapons combinations, but Borderlands’ weapons had at most half the imagination of what you could get in Hellgate. (Another part of this comments thread mentioned developers wanting too much control. Borderlands developers “controlled” all the fun out of the idea of random weapons.) And while Borderlands had more area content than Hellgate, it may actually have less replay value (at least to my friends and myself, who went through all of Borderlands only once, finding a second play just too boring.) What else tries to be some kind of amalgamation of an online/MMO/FPS/RPG? Phantasy Star Online? Pretty, but plenty of flaws and shortcomings as well. Anything else? There are plenty of Diablo clones, but how many of them go for a behind-the-back camera view for the action? (It might seem like a small matter, but there is a big difference in playing a behind-the-back action game and an overhead action game.)

        • KDR_11k says:

          I liked HGL, certainly more than Borderlands. The main reason was a more varied selection of skills and guns (I played as a marksman).

  4. BlackeyeVuk says:

    Im playing Torchlight 1 . And I do not even care. Heartily waiting for second , but without pressure to the devs.

  5. Xardas Kane says:

    I still haven’t picked it up, I’m holding out for the real Diablo 3 – Tochlight 2. With offline single-player. And mods. And a character progression system that rewards you for thinking. And developers that care.

    If they choose to remove the always-on DRM though I might get it eventually.

    • reggiep says:

      Keep telling yourself that. It’ll never be true, but you’ll believe it the more you keep repeating it.

      • Xardas Kane says:

        Keep telling myself what exactly? That Torchlight 2 will be good? I’ve had a hands-on experience with the game, I know it’s good. Or that Diablo 3 could drop the always-on DRM? Do note I don’t “tell myself” that. I merely pointed out that if they drop the DRM I might grab the game.

        • mckertis says:

          “That Torchlight 2 will be good?”

          It probably will be. After a year or two, when unpaid MODDERS will fix whatever will be wrong with the game. God knows, Runic did jack shit to fix Torchlight 1 themselves.

          • Sarissofoi says:

            Fate was made to fund Torchlight.
            It was simple yet fun.
            Torchlight was made to fund Torchlight 2.
            It was little more complex but still fun.

            I played beta and I know that Torchlight 2 will be good.
            They don’t have time and cash like Blizzard but they do a good job.

          • Dark Nexus says:

            I found Torchlight to be quite good – unmodded.

          • subedii says:

            Same, Torchlight was really good. If it wasn’t I wouldn’t be interested in TL2 in the first place.

            The only mods I really felt I needed were just tweaks to the interface regarding gem stacking.

          • Snorez says:

            I played a Beta weekend in TL2 a couple of months back. It was a cracker. I thought it was SUBSTANTIALLY better then Diablo 3. The style, art, game mechanics and characters. Thats before you even get to things like offline single player and a robust modding community. It will certainly get my hard earned and I recommend it to others.

          • Matt says:

            Fate was made at an entirely different company, years before Torchlight was a thought in anyone’s mind.

          • Premium User Badge

            ffordesoon says:

            Why would they?

            Torchlight wasn’t broken.

  6. Sakkura says:

    Blizzard have done a rare thing in combining this year’s biggest hit and most farcical launch and postlaunch support in one game.

    • Fierce says:

      Don’t Activision do that every year with the MW/BlOps franchises?

      I think the farce is in the price:value proposition required per annum.

      • Xardas Kane says:

        Actually the people who like COD get a lot of value out of those games – dozens upon dozens of hours in multiplayer. Whether you and me like it or not is a whole other story.

        • Universal Quitter says:

          Holy crap. A nuanced and thoughtful viewpoint, with evidence of perspective and tolerance. That’s like finding a coelacanth.

  7. SkittleDiddler says:

    Blizzsaywhat?

  8. Reapy says:

    Too little, too late.

  9. hh10k says:

    I stopped playing single player after my HC char died, but I play coop once a week.

    Personally, I’m a little unhappy that they’re making enemies weaker in coop, and elites less elite. Everyone’s complaint is that the game is too boring, especially in the lower levels, and this will just make it worse. It’s hard for me to organise playing time with other people, so we don’t have time to play through so many repeats of the story to get up to the really hard bits!

  10. Jimbo says:

    So much for ‘Diablo is a multiplayer game!’ then. Who knew.

    • tetracycloide says:

      The game is completely identical to the way D2 would work if the only gameplay mode is Multiplayer: Closed B.net. Being in your own instance all the time doesn’t make that ‘single player’ either. Solo play =/= single player any more than soloing in Guild Wars makes that single player.

      However, that’s largely academic. The problem is still the same: fans of the series had played single player in previous installments in the series and reasonably expected to do so again but the franchise was changed into something else that’s not necessarily for them. They have every right to feel abandoned and, if they picked this game up, like second class citizens in a community ‘served’ by developers who keep trying to shepherd them into multiplayer like they’re just sheep and not, you know, people/customers.

      • psyk says:

        “They have every right to feel abandoned”

        Do they? Do they really? yes they do but they should maybe put there live in to perspective?

        • Premium User Badge

          Dilapinated says:

          “Do they? Do they really? yes they do but they should maybe put there live in to perspective?”

          The only possible message I’m getting here is “Anyone who has an emotional investment in a videogame franchise has a sad, petty life”? Is that really what you’re trying to argue?

          ..I think you may be on the wrong website.

          • alundra says:

            “.I think you may be on the wrong website.”

            He may, but it doesn’t change the sad truth he is pointing at.

      • Jimbo says:

        Can you ‘solo’ Guild Wars without coming across other players at any point? I was led to believe that is the case with Diablo 3.

        • Premium User Badge

          Mungrul says:

          Technically, no, but that’s only because you’re likely to come across other players in towns. Towns are basically glorified chatrooms with no real gameplay, just areas for other players to meet and for the player to take a break and buy/sell stuff.
          However, as a game, it is entirely possible to play all of the instanced PvE areas on your own with the aid of AI henchmen and heroes.
          GW2 on the other hand?
          Nope, proper, full-on MMO that one.

  11. JackDandy says:

    You know what’s the real shame about this entire thing?

    Blizzard basically got a full authorization, both from users and most gaming “journalism” sites, to fuck their audience right in the ass.

    What a goddamned scam.

  12. Freud says:

    Most of the changes are positive. Hopefully the buffs to legendaries will make the loot hunt more interesting and the class changes will make more builds viable.

    Blizzard will get it right eventually. Not that it will stop the haters from complaining of course.

    • studenteternal says:

      after all it only took them 10 years to get the game out the door at all, whats another decade to polish it?

    • Koozer says:

      Like they got the systems of WoW right eventually? They seem to completely overhaul that game’s entire set of mechanics with great regularity and to much chagrin. See: Burning Crusade patch, massive overhauls to at least some classes, talent trees completely changing every 5 minutes, now culminating in their removal entirely.

      • Freud says:

        Like they got D2 right eventually. I played D2 at launch and it wasn’t all that satisfying. It was a pointless grind. It took numerous patches and an expansion to get it right. D3 has a lot of things going for it. The combat and skill system is amazing. It has flaws (engame not being satisfying enough and loot not being satsifying). It may take an expansion to get D3 to live up to it’s potential, but I think Blizzard will get there eventually.

        WoW is a different thing since it will get stale no matter what for anyone playing it long enough. I’ve seen people talk about vanilla as the perfect WoW, TBC as the perfect WoW and WotLK as the perfect WoW. All with wildly different gameplay. Basically people like what the game is like when they are into the genre. It does seem that Cataclysm got a lot of things wrong but even if they didn’t you would have tonnes of people getting bored with the game anyway. It’s the nature of the beast.

      • tetracycloide says:

        It’s funny you’d bring up BC as an example because many high end raiders claim that Sunwell was at least as good as Naxx if not better. Seems like they did alright when that set of changes finally apexed. Not sure about anything since then though.

  13. DickSocrates says:

    Diablo III?

    MORE LIKE FIASCO III!

    On a side note, yesterday I ate an entire large bag of Doritos and today I smell of Doritos. To get back on topic, Dortio starts and ends with the same letters as Diablo.

  14. Vorphalack says:

    So they’ve got 2 game modes, solo and co-op. They identify that most of the players want to solo, so they spend most of their development time making co-op easier instead of improving the solo game? That’s defiantly an attitude carried over from WoW. They think one path is inherently superior, and the only conceivable explanation for why it attracts a minority is that it’s too hard : |

    • tetracycloide says:

      There’s actually only one mode, co-op. An empty co-op game does not a separate game mode make. What they need to do is introduce an actual gameplay mode for single player.

  15. Gorf says:

    personally i stopped playing because of the repair costs and worthless loot. never played solo and could never understand why anyone would play anything other then co op.

    • Grygus says:

      Personally I stopped playing because of repair costs and worthless loot. Rarely played co-op and could never understand why anyone would play anything other than solo.

      • psyk says:

        They have friends who they like to play the game with………. shit gamers now days.

      • Gorf says:

        Excellent!!Its good to be different.
        Btw, i was never of the opinion that diablo players where mainly into co op. I always had a suspicion that there where a shit tonne more casual gamers that would be playing solo, who never play online games in general.

        • Premium User Badge

          jrodman says:

          Please don’t use the word ‘casual’. All you’re doing is sticking another knife in its complete lack of any meaning.

    • Premium User Badge

      Stellar Duck says:

      It’s a good job you’re the only person in the world then.

      Seriously, it’s people like you who attack me on the Paradox forums when I ask why they removed the slowest game speed in Crusader Kings 2.

      “I PLAY AT SPEED 500000 AND YOU’RE A WEIRDO FOR WANTING TO PLAY SLOW! I’LL NEVER UNDERSTAND WHY ANYONE WOULD TAKE HOURS UPON HOURS TO PLAY CRUSADER KINGS 2 WHAT IDIOT WOULD WANT TO ENJOY THE GAME AT A PACE THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH!? MOAR SPEED!!”

      Now you might not mean it like that, but that’s where your way of thinking leads. One style fits all and everyone who prefers different can go fuck themselves.

      • Gorf says:

        “Now you might not mean it like that”

        You think?
        I also cant understand why so many people eat ham & pineapple pizza when pepperoni & mushroom is so much better.

        • Premium User Badge

          Stellar Duck says:

          My problem is when people want to prevent others from eating ham and pineapple.

          But my apologies. I’m just pissed after yet again getting savaged for asking if for Dogs sake, Paradox can reintroduce the old speeds. CK2 was my favorite game this year by miles and now I can’t enjoy it. Well, I can, if I roll it back to 1.0. Guess I bought the DRM free version for a good reason other than to stick it to Steam. But hell, rolling it back to 1.0 is not a satisfying solution.

          • Gorf says:

            I would never try and prevent you from enjoying your pizza.If I had my own pizza place i would make sure it had Hawaiian’s on the menu too….I mean its a pretty standard topping, and it would be wrong of any restaurant to not included it.

        • CrookedLittleVein says:

          I like prawn and pepperoni.

          Forever alone . . .

          • Matt says:

            That’s two meats, you can’t have two meat toppings on a pizza. You have to either have only one, or all the meats.

          • Premium User Badge

            jrodman says:

            Oh? I was sort of subconsciously aware of this Law of Pizza, but had never seen it so clearly articulated. Is there a manifesto or list of commandments somewhere?

          • CrookedLittleVein says:

            @Matt

            Do not be silly. Prawn is not a meat, it is fish. I see vegetarians eating it all the time.

  16. Calabi says:

    This just highlights to me that they dont have a clue what they are doing or how to make it fun. They admit that hardly anyone plays multiplayer. There messing around changing these little variables, backwards and forwards like it is an MMORPG. Eventually after a million iterations of doing this they might have a half decent game I suppose, but will they have many players?

  17. TheWhippetLord says:

    “At the moment though playing solo is the clear choice, even for those who would prefer co-op with some of their friends.”
    So, exactly how could Blizzard possibly know what players would rather have been doing? A mass covert penetration of email systems? Stealthy neural jacks placed inside our very brains while we sleep? Or possibly an official update from The Ministry of Wishful Thinking, routed via their posteriors?

    • Grygus says:

      It is because Blizzard decided up front that co-op is better, and so anyone not doing it is obviously going against their better judgment. This inability to adjust to what the players are doing, rather than trying to force the playing into doing what Blizzard wants them to do, has been getting progressively worse over the last few years. Some people blame WoW, but I think Activision is just as likely to be the real problem. Activision wants people online; it is much harder to monetize single player offline mode.

      • subedii says:

        This inability to adjust to what the players are doing, rather than trying to force the playing into doing what Blizzard wants them to do, has been getting progressively worse over the last few years.

        Pretty much agree with this, although to be honest, I don’t think it’s limited to just Blizzard.

        I felt the same when Bioware deliberately tied singleplayer progress in Mass Effect 3 to their multiplayer game. That was just dumb. It wasn’t necessary, nobody forced them to do that. They did it deliberately in order to try and make more people get into the multiplayer, instead of just leaving MP as something there on its own.

        The reason in that case was because multiplayer is seen as the means to combat the second-hand market (which publishers and developers are ALWAYS crying about), so you need to get people into it. It’s also evidenced in the way it’s designed, such that any gains you make in multiplayer are temporary to the singleplayer. There was no reason to make it degrade with time either. That was done purely to make sure that people stuck with the multiplayer.

        In either case, it’s a situation where the developer stops caring what the player wants, and instead is trying to make the player play the way they, the developer, wants. And I do feel that kind of attitude has only gotten worse with time.

        • malkav11 says:

          It was ultimately immaterial in Mass Effect 3’s case, though. War readiness had zero impact on the game and next to zero impact on the ending. Blizzard’s unwillingness to let their game be singleplayer has already had plenty of impact on players and will ultimately kill the game, which is sad.

          • Vorphalack says:

            ”War readiness had zero impact on the game and next to zero impact on the ending”

            But how many people knew that going into the game after launch? BioWare came out and said the ”best ending” was tied to your war readiness, and people began to notice that you could not cap war readiness in single player. Although it was a scam, people were tricked into the multi-player to fill up a bar that did nothing.

          • psyk says:

            Vorphalack can you post a link to the statement that says you need to max out “War readiness”?

            EDIT
            Never played but it sounds like gamers taking something to mean something else, Kinda like that valve ARG.

          • Vorphalack says:

            Yeah, hang on while I check my archive of year old dev blog posts from games I never intend to buy……

          • malkav11 says:

            They definitely indicated that the ending would be tied to your war readiness (and it was, kind of, but not in any meaningful way), but not that you would have to play multiplayer to get the “best” ending.

          • Premium User Badge

            jrodman says:

            psyk: it was reported on a popular gaming blog.

    • tetracycloide says:

      Yes it would be better if they had included a single player gameplay mode from the start.

      However, I think you’re trying awfully hard to twist what is actually a good thing, that they’re looking at what their players are doing and not doing and trying to make the things people aren’t doing but could be less shitty. If the game is to be multiplayer only isn’t it a positive that they’re trying to improve the multiplayer experience?

      • malkav11 says:

        …why not make the things players -are- doing less shitty instead of trying to convince people to play the game differently?

        • tetracycloide says:

          They are? Did you read the post? It’s not all changes to co-op stuff. The changes to ilvl 61 and 62 weapons are a massive quality of life improvement for players that are both soloing and not using the AH at all, for example.

    • Cal says:

      Because the scaling system actively discouraged playing co-op at high difficulties. Players would enjoy co-op through Hell and then be forced to break into solo games in Inferno, or at least go down from a full group to a duo.

  18. RandomEsa says:

    So where did everyone go who said that Diablo is mainly a multiplayer game and people who played it single-player were a minority. I just want to say something to you:

    Thanks a fucking lot. 10 years. 10 YEARS!. Not only did Blizzard screw those fans that just wanted Diablo 2 with improvements they also screwed you who defended them even when they had very questionable decisions and outright horribly streamlining of the whole game.

    • Grygus says:

      Blaming the fans is silly, though; it should be obvious at this point that Blizzard doesn’t give a whole lot of credence to what fans say they want.

      • Premium User Badge

        jrodman says:

        True, but hearing that fallacy so many times sure was annoying.

      • RandomEsa says:

        I usually blame the fans for eating everything up that the developer puts on their plate.

        Same reason I argue that Skyrim wasn’t very good entry in Elder Scrolls series ( even though it was a above average game in its own rights) and might just be worse than Oblivion in that regard. But thanks to the huge sales and positive reception next Elder Scrolls entry might just be even more “streamlined” than Skyrim was.

        I guess the real question to the fans of Diablo 3 would be “Is this really what you want?”

      • Catalept says:

        Some fans want opposite things to others fans. This guarantees that at any given time the only people who are always happy are haters, who can confidently state at any point in time that Blizzard is ignoring fans, as if they are people of courage and integrity who have accepted some dark and uncomfortable truth, rather than a blindingly obvious fundamental fact about game design.

        • Grygus says:

          Ha ha that is clever! However, in this case they have confessed that they ignored the majority of their fans, so I don’t see how your incisive commentary relates to my post.

        • RandomEsa says:

          Diablo 2 was fine for both multiplayer or singleplayer. Why would you try to fix something that wasn’t broken?

    • tetracycloide says:

      I don’t think it’s fair to say it was ‘mainly’ either mode. One of its better qualities was that it had both and people self selected into the mode that was better for them, that’s a good way to design a game.

      • RandomEsa says:

        Except Diablo 3’s singleplayer wasn’t very well designed. Always-online requirement to “protect” people from cheaters was the major kicker but not having characters for singleplayer and multiplayer separated like in Diablo 3 was a joke.

        Considering that the story nor the atmosphere are nothing like in D1 and D2 there is little no replayablity in singleplayer. Story in diablo has never been good but diablo 3 makes both D1 and D2 look like masterpieces in comparison.

        You also might argue that Diablo 3 was tailored for both but always-online and auction house really make a case for that Diablo 3’s main focus was on the multiplayer experience.

      • Grygus says:

        We disagree here. You could not play without being online, and you are not going to make it far without the Auction House. Friends can auto-invite themselves into your game whenever they like, unless you disable that behavior. That doesn’t match any definition of “single player” with which I am familiar.

  19. Yemala says:

    I think, in the case of diablo 3, it’s not a case of ‘people want to play single player more than coop’, it’s that blizzard incentivized solo play (or disincentivized coop) to a silly degree.

    My fiance and I played together until inferno, but then the 150% enemy health and 25% extra damage, or whatever it was, was just entirely unfun.

    They also did a very good job (at least after a patch) with the ‘random people matchmaking’ element, but then they made your magic find ‘share’ with everyone, which people felt was punitive, and the mob health made it a bit silly.

    So I kind of thing blizzard has learned the /wrong/ lesson from this – it’s not that people only want to play single player, it’s just that when they punish you fairly harshly for playing coop, you don’t do it.

    • malkav11 says:

      No, I think it really is that most people want to play singleplayer because that’s what data from previous Diablos and a whole lot of other games in the past indicates. They may indeed -also- be discouraging people who want to play coop from doing so, which it sounds like they will be working to address.

      • psyk says:

        Go and read the official forum, people don’t play coop for the reasons mentioned by Yemala and are nice and vocal about it.

        • subedii says:

          That would be the same community which constantly maintained that nobody plays Diablo for the singleplayer though.

          Not to discount the point, but that doesn’t really prove it either. In both cases it’s the same audience saying these things.

          • malkav11 says:

            Exactly. I don’t dispute there is a significant coop community around Diablo games, many of whom may be currently avoiding Diablo III’s coop because of game design errors. What I do dispute is the idea that this community is or ever has been more than a minority of overall Diablo players.

  20. Yosharian says:

    Wow, I actually might considering playing this game through Inferno now.

  21. Trelow says:

    I’m waiting for better boss drop rates to play again. Stupid RMAH. I play hc, you softies screwed up my game.

  22. fish99 says:

    Nice list actually. May give inferno another try after the patch. IMO it’s a fun game until you hit the act 2 inferno wall and have to start farming for gear.

    • RedWurm says:

      I may try it again some time, but I love the whole ocd loot thing in d2, and not only do I find far too few interesting drops in d3, the stuff I get is deeply mediocre compared to the things I can just buy at auction. And auction houses are not why I bought the game.

      I still play d2 from time to time because the farming was actually rewarding. The fighting is, mechanically, more enjoyable in d3, but with no payoff at the end I’m just fighting for the sake of fighting, and it’s not fun enough to keep me playing.

  23. MythArcana says:

    This project is resembling Duke Nukem Forever as time goes on. It’s really too bad about the poor decisions ActiBlizzard has made.

    • Dances to Podcasts says:

      I don’t think we ever had a thread like this about Gearbox patching Duke?

  24. psyk says:

    Wait let me get this straight to make people play coop they have given us are own MF?

    WOOOOOOO to having the rest of the group be way underpowered.

    EDIT
    The majority of forum goers are not always right I would say they are mostly wrong.

    • Moraven says:

      Before we had Avg magic find of all party members. This meant you could not waltz into a game with 150% magic find and contribute little dps while reaping the full benefit of it. Downside is people would avoid co op since you would have less magic find?

      Not it will be just your own magic find. Incentive for you to stack only magic find while your group does all the DPS for you.

      Worst change.

      Just give groups a bonus magic find percentage, for the higher difficulty it brought.

      • psyk says:

        Right, leading to people avoiding co-op as they feel like they are just helping leeches progress.

        4 players
        3 with full MF set no DPS or RES
        1 player with high DPS and RES

        The MF players are getting all the benefits while the DPSer is screwed (Not taking in to account time to farm)

        • Baines says:

          Maybe a workable solution would be to combine the two approaches.

          You get your own magic find, but get group bonus based on the rest of your party. Then the leeches are still helping the serious player.

          Perhaps scale it so that if your magic find is higher than the rest of the group, you get little or no bonus. That way all the leeches aren’t benefiting from each other. Don’t turn it into a penalty, though. You don’t necessarily want to punish players for having a high magic find.

          Complicated, but you could probably design it to some acceptable form. Not that my opinion matters one whit to what Blizzard may or may not ultimately do.

  25. Stormkiller72 says:

    We hear you all prefer solo-play, so we’re patching co-op.
    Ignorant much?

    Had been looking forward to Diablows 3 ever since i had my fill of D2 back in the day, but held off from purchasing mostly down to various news about the way the IP was heading, the fact that Jennifer Hale’s (Genericfer Hale) VO is in it, and the woeful cash-grab that is the crappy RMAH portion of the farce.

    So glad I passed this up in favour of Path of Exile.
    Still waiting on Torchlight 2 though…

  26. aliksy says:

    Meh. Some parts of the game were fun, but the items were boring and the difficulty was all over the place. I guess it was net fun, but the late game frustration/disappointment really lowered my opinion of the game.

    That and the “gear > all” thing, the innate lag, and shitty hit detection. That fucking hit detection. Ugh.

  27. Strutter says:

    2 things I want fixed: invisible mobs being invincible until they’re right on top of you and leaping mobs that are also invincible until their animation is over.

    Wake me when they address that.

    Edit: and also mobs that hit you after you moved away just because their animation started.

    Ugh this game >;/

  28. Subucula Tertia says:

    I find the many references to “farming efficiency” disturbing.

  29. pakoito says:

    >While many people are playing co-op, it’s still a minority of games.

    But the game is online only because most people played D2 online. Am I right? Everyone here played D2 online only. With friends. For years. With economy.

  30. Dark Nexus says:

    Just think of how many copies they would have sold with an actual single player mode!

    • Premium User Badge

      jaheira says:

      Considerably fewer I imagine, if by single player you mean offline. Piracy innit.

      • Vorphalack says:

        They got you brainwashed but good don’t they.

        • Premium User Badge

          jaheira says:

          How interesting. Attacking me personally instead of addressing the issue. Never seen that on a gaming forum before. Feel free to contest the point, by the way.

          • Vorphalack says:

            There is nothing to contest, unless you can magic up some proof that crippling DRM actually increases sales. I’ll save you the effort of looking and just tell you there isn’t any.

          • Premium User Badge

            jaheira says:

            I know there isn’t any proof, which is why I said “I imagine” . I was just trying to counterpoint Dark Nexus’ assertion that DRM hurt sales of Diablo 3. I suspect it did the opposite. Who exactly is supposed to have brainwashed me by the way? Certainly not Blizzard. Their assertions that the online requirement wasn’t DRM was clearly bullshit. It would have been much more interesting if they’d been honest about it.

          • HadToLogin says:

            I can’t find it right now, but one company (not even sure if that was gaming, or just software company) actually made some efforts to check if DRM increase sales (that was around Assassin Creed 2 release). They made different software with different DRM and changed DRM in patches, and in the end their results were that out of 1000 pirates, 1 will buy when he can’t pirate it – and that was little stuff, not AAA title with millions of $ put into brainwashing people this product will change their lives (which most marketing is doing…).

      • Grygus says:

        StarCraft II had a single-player campaign and was vulnerable to piracy. Didn’t seem to hurt its sales much. What do you feel has changed since then?

  31. remote says:

    This game is beyond repair.

  32. Premium User Badge

    Carra says:

    I’ve enjoyed the game for 35 hours or so and that makes me happy, it’s more than most games I play.

    Plus, I’m fairly sure that it’s a game that I will come back to in maybe a year.

  33. thebigJ_A says:

    “At the moment though playing solo is the clear choice, even for those who would prefer co-op with some of their friends.”

    Or maybe it’s just that more people want to play SP? The simplest explanation, and all…

  34. FunkyDarkKnight says:

    I don’t actually care at all for these updates unless they fix the ridiculous DRM as I refuse to play before that point.
    I use the word ‘fix’ because I see the DRM as broken.

  35. derbefrier says:

    well, i am glad they are removing enrage timers. Theres one battle won(i know i bitched about them plenty on the forums). Glad to see they are doing something with legendaries too most of them are worthless as of right now.. Its a step in the right direction . Its almost too late though I and a lot of my friends have already moved on to other games. none of this still doesnt fix the main problem with D# and that is lack of complexity and diversity. I dont have a lot of faith in blizzards class balancing after WoW. Instead of more viable builds i am expecting just a new set of FoTM builds and thats about it.
    None of this fixes D3’s biggest issue – Its still too much like WoW and not enough like Diablo.

  36. QSpec says:

    Does anyone want to say ‘suck it’ to the people who vehemently argued for always-on because D3 is first and foremost a cooperative game?

    Is that just me?

    • fish99 says:

      The always-on thing was always about piracy and never about the game being ‘primarily a multiplayer game’. Blizzards PR will have their reasons why they didn’t want to just be honest about it, I guess it’s because there’s usually a PR backlash when developers talk about piracy in the context of DRM. I think they just saw it as a way out. “Hey let’s pretend it’s an MMO, and then people won’t complain about needing to be online”. Except the majority saw through it of course.

  37. twiggy550 says:

    Meh, I can’t think of a reason to bother with Acti-Blizzard again, especially since Path of Exile is a better game all around.

  38. HaVoK308 says:

    More Acts, that is what I want. Act IV was a joke. How about some new areas to explore. I will never understand how people can retread the exact same levels and kill the exact same AI over and over again. Single Player Content, that is what they need to be concentrating on. It’s a single player game for most. At least it is for everyone I know.

    Once Torchlight II ships I will have no reason to even think about Diablo again.

  39. Vorphalack says:

    Reply fail.

  40. Premium User Badge

    ts061282 says:

    Can’t wait till they blog about the new exploits in this patch. Excited!

  41. DAOWAce says:

    Don’t worry, by the time 1.5 comes around, Diablo 3 will be a good game.

    If they re-hired the folks from Blizzard North, that is.

    Am I still bitter? Maybe. I’m just glad I never purchased the game because I knew how bad it would be from beta experience.

    Path of Exile is the Diablo fix I wanted.

    • fish99 says:

      The actual game is very good, i’d say it has the best gameplay i’ve seen in an ARPG, faster and slicker than PoE. You wouldn’t have seen this in the beta though because of the level cap. It’s only on later difficulty settings where you have the full skill slots and most of the runes that you really have the full arsenal to play with. You may congratulate yourself on having avoided it, but despite the annoyances I still had 80-100 hrs top entertainment from the game.

      Don’t take all the negative opinions you read about D3 too seriously, it’s mostly just blowing off steam from people who played the game a ton and enjoyed most of their time with it. People can’t rationalize that though, they just focus on the minor issues and ignore the balance of the experience.

  42. ShadowLeague says:

    It’s all right Blizzard, you wanted to prove a point. You were wrong. Now show some grace in defeat and give your fans what they want, an offline single-player mode.

  43. Brit89 says:

    Playing co-op was fun before they added the nerf pacth.

  44. Pray For Death says:

    Good thing I haven’t played this yet. It should probably be a decent experience by the time I buy it next year.

  45. mr_zen256 says:

    Fuck D3.. Biggest disappointment in gaming history.

  46. Sinnorfin says:

    Once upon a time these games were fun and challenging, and if you wanted you could restlessly search for items..farm..but nowadays these games are designed with that in mind, you’re supposed to farm.

    Its like old deus ex where you could invent your ways and the new deus ex where your multiple paths are designed ahead.

  47. Premium User Badge

    ffordesoon says:

    Maybe they should fix it so I’m not getting lag in the single-player game I paid sixty dollars for. Can they change that “feature”? Oh, and can they fix it so I don’t have to spoil any surprises the game has to offer before I can play it on a difficulty level that doesn’t put me to sleep (though that does admittedly get better by the end of Act I)? Ooh, and here’s an idea, maybe don’t spoil every mildly interesting twist in your dumb story in the Achievements section, thereby robbing me of much motivation to play beyond lizard-brain-gratifying loot-hunting and achievement-whoring? And maybe you could patch in Dungeon Siege III’s manual-dodge-and-block mechanic, so the positioning you so clearly want me to be able to do isn’t driven by blind luck as much as skill? Sure, it would piss off the stats nerds in the audience, but they’re already mad at you, Blizzard, and they’re sure as hell not playing your game. Oh, and maybe you could actually roguelike it up a bit and let me explore more randomly generated areas? You know, the thing that kept people playing D2 forever? Is that possible? You know, instead of forcing me through the same areas over and over in every part of the game except completely optional dungeons it takes me forever to find?

    And yet, after feeling a bit bored through most of Act I and quitting, I recently logged back on and finally started loving the game. And I would love it so much more if it wasn’t lashed to these utterly bizarre and stupid control-freak tendencies Blizzard seem unaware that they constantly indulge in. It’s like buying a book on Amazon and getting sent a rooted Kindle that just plays a video the author filmed of their hands turning the pages, and the only thing you can do is pause and unpause it, but the text is perfectly legible in the video, so you can still technically “read” the book. And then you email the author to complain, and they write back, “It’s better than turning those pages by hand, isn’t it? Wasn’t that hard? No, read it again, and you’ll see this is the best thing for you.” Just a staggering misunderstanding of what the audience actually wants.

    Much like Mass Effect 3, I love the actual game (I liked multiplayer in ME3, even!), and hate everything surrounding it.