Results 61 to 80 of 141
22-02-2013, 07:38 PM #61
- If the sound of Samuel Barber's "Adagio For Strings" makes you think of Kharak burning instead of the Vietnamese jungle, most of your youth happened during the 90s. -
22-02-2013, 07:40 PM #62
22-02-2013, 07:43 PM #63
People don't like "the big guy". Thus, they create conspiracies and evil plans and assume they are trying to destroy the world. So they latch on to ANYTHING they can. Sometimes that is good (calling out bad practices), sometimes it is pointless and destroys any credibility.
22-02-2013, 07:47 PM #64
I'm still waiting for this to be confirmed because while it could well be true, it could be the lost in translation thing. I know he said offline, but I still think he could be referring to offline coop, rather than the game actually not being connected to the net.steam: sketch
22-02-2013, 07:52 PM #65
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
22-02-2013, 07:55 PM #66
Creating an MMO gave birth to a whole new genre of games - the Office 2007 ribbon was about trying a new approach to make working with the product easier for new users and is, at the end of the day, a matter of taste. I still fail to see how adding an always-on requirement to Diablo 3 introduced any benefit to the game.
I haven't played too many MMOs (the only ones in detail being TOR and Guild Wars 2), but I think Guild Wars 2 focus on having a metric crapton of dynamic events is a step in this direction. It encourages everyone to work together by FORCING them to work together. Maybe TOR had this (arguable), maybe not, but I know I almost never bothered to say "Hey" to someone because I never knew what they were doing. Instead of having an orange quest in my upper right that says "They too are grabbing baby slugs to feed to a quaggan"
Did they have an ulterior motive? Yeah. But conceptually, the idea of "forced" drop-in coop is great. It builds a sense of community and builds toward the social utopia that Sony wants for the PS4
But there are some things that aren't worth trying if everybody and their dog tells you it's a bad idea. I have never tried jumping out of a driving car at 80 mph, and guess what, I won't anytime soon.
People stomach steam drm
Everyone loves Demon/Dark Souls co-op
I don't really see how Blizzard's approach is inherently wrong. I think they needed to build up to it, but the cover story for their DRM makes a lot of sense and follows industry trends.
It's hard to be positive when looking at Blizzard's recent track record, but you never know indeed.
Made the MMO that is the gold standard (GW2 is better :p)
Consistently make games everyone loves (even Starcraft 2 is pretty well received)
The ONLY real blemish they have is Diablo 3. But apparently one screw-up is a "track record" that means they must never be tolerated again!!!! And people wonder why devs/publishers don't care about "PC gamer loyalty"
22-02-2013, 08:10 PM #67
22-02-2013, 08:11 PM #68
22-02-2013, 08:12 PM #69
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
22-02-2013, 08:18 PM #70
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Like gundato, I take a slightly less cynical view of Blizzard in regards to D3. It's not that piracy prevention wasn't high on the agenda, but I also think they really hoped that they were providing adequate benefits to the player to make the online thing worthwhile, with fast, easy, seamless multiplayer and fast, secure trading, as well as taking the black market out of the picture. Duping and stat hacking become impossible. These are worthwhile things. They aren't worthwhile enough to justify the requirement. ARPGs, while I'm sure they're fun with friends, are fundamentally solo games as designed, and hoping won't make it otherwise, if the devs are unwilling to change the focus of the game.
Something that I think gets lost in the furor over the online requirement is that despite some large flaws the game is obviously crafted carefully and with love.
22-02-2013, 08:29 PM #71
But you are right. They buggered up the implementation, so it will be up to someone else to try again.
StarCraft 2 was one long tutorial for the multiplayer mode. ;) I will start tolerating them again when they prove they have learned from the mess that was Diablo 3's online mode. Telling people that their game wouldn't work without an internet connection and then announcing that they magically thought of some way to introduce offline playing in the PS4 version doesn't really raise my confidence in them.
Isn't that what this shows (assuming it is true)? They are doing exactly what people wanted, they just haven't officially said if they are propagating that fix.
Last edited by gundato; 22-02-2013 at 08:34 PM.
22-02-2013, 08:39 PM #72
22-02-2013, 08:45 PM #73
22-02-2013, 08:47 PM #74
So its not "they need to learn from their mistakes" it is "Fuck them, I want this and I want it now"?
For any multiplayer-oriented title (and yes, Diablo 3 was a multiplayer-oriented title. Maybe Diablo 2 wasn't, but 3 sure was), you need a community. Having a strong offline/SP component kind of kills the community.
Last edited by gundato; 22-02-2013 at 08:49 PM.
22-02-2013, 09:09 PM #75
22-02-2013, 10:30 PM #76
22-02-2013, 10:40 PM #77
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
I think if you, as a person, are very strong against weak people, but shows as servile and very weak against strong people, you are a petty tyrant. Blizzard is a petty tyrant.
Is easy to fuck PC gamers over, because we give a lot of freedom to publishers. but since Is harder to do the same against console gamers, sudenly is Ok to make the game work offline.
I, of course, hope everybody get a good version of the game and enjoy it. But I still feel like Blizzard deserve our worst opinions after this. Bliz is giving us shit (forced online mode) because can give us shit, not because any other rationalization.
22-02-2013, 10:44 PM #78
"Something else we're adding is local co-op as well as online
Yeah, its new"
22-02-2013, 11:05 PM #79
If you want to argue apples and pears, sure. Both are fruits and both go very well with a sandwich in a brown paper bag.
But in all seriousness, my point was more about building (by force) a community and trying something new. LOTS of stuff seems like a stupid idea to some people, and the notoriously fickle gamers may even hate it, but they learn to love it. And, lots of recent MMOs that have tried to cater to the "singleplayer gamer" have failed because they didn't build up a community.
not really. diablo 3 was /forced/ into being multiplayer title, rather than multiplayer being fundamental to its existence. and i feel like you killed your own (strange) argument by bringing up diablo 2, a game with a very strong offline/sp component that has had a vibrant community for more than a decade.
Seriously, get over it. You don't like the direction they took, but it is still the direction they took. The GAME Diablo 3 is a mulitplayer game. Maybe it didn't have to be, maybe it shouldn't be, but it is. Ergo, because htey decided to make it multiplayer, being multiplayer is "fundamental to its existence". A lot of people feel that SC: Conviction was too action oriented. That doesn't mean SC: Conviction isn't an action-oriented game, it just might mean it isn't a Splinter Cell game (it totally was, for the record :p).
And Diablo 2, like most ARPGs, was largely described as "Play it online and/or at the hardest difficulty setting for the best experience", and that is what people have done for the past decade or so.
Hell, every time someone brings up Borderlands 1 and (generally) bitches about it being "meh", they are told "Play it online". Every time someone says "I can't beat Smough and Ornstein" or "I am a dumbass who keeps walking into a trap", they are told to look for white, orange, and gold signs accordingly. All Blizzard did was force people to play it the way they want you to play it. Was there an ulterior motive? Of course, but they worked it into the gameplay.
Last edited by gundato; 22-02-2013 at 11:16 PM.
22-02-2013, 11:15 PM #80
You are defending alway online DRM in single player.
Just a reminder.