|
|
 |
| [Jul 05, 2012, 7:11 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
Ars Technica - Blizzard admits Diablo III is a game that ends.
Just how long should players expect a game to remain fresh and exciting? Do publishers have to treat all AAA games as services that keep us constantly entertained for years or even decades? Have MMOs trained us to feel entitled to games that never actually end? These are the questions that have been circling my head after reading Blizzard's response to player complaints about the lack of compelling "endgame" content in Diablo III.
Shacknews.com - Diablo 3's poorly planned end-game.
It's a shame that a company with Blizzard's pedigree couldn't have foreseen the monotony and disillusionment that could creep in less then two months after the game's release. Blizzard has some good storytellers and a fantastic animation staff. Something as intriguing as Halo 4's planned Spartan Ops episodic content would have been enough to keep me engrossed until the inevitable expansion, even if it was every month instead of every week.
In the end, I guess, players with the same mentality as die-hard MMO players will continue to populate the Diablo III servers. Diablo III was an enjoyable game for the first 80 hours.
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 6. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 5, 2012, 20:44 |
Dades |
|
|
xXBatmanXx wrote on Jul 5, 2012, 19:27:
What it comes down to is "how many hours have you played"? Anything over 100 hours for a new game is pretty good. Some people like to play games forever, but that is rare. Since it IS Diablo, it shuold probably last a few hundred hours (which it still can if you go through each class like I am).
Oh well. Any game "I" get 100 hours out of, I can't really complain. You can't do anything other form of entertainment (within reason) for less than 50 cents an hour....
What it comes down to is "how many hours have you played and had fun?". I could spend 800 hours grinding in Disgaea but that doesn't mean anything.
Diablo III's big failing is that the time you spend in it isn't as enjoyable as Diablo II. Big shoes to fill but they had plenty of time and a practically unlimited budget to do it. So far they failed. The game didn't need a raiding end game or something stupid, it just needed the developers to not fuck up the things people liked with the Diablo formula. People did the same shit on and off for like ten years in Diablo II, Diablo III is barely lasting a month for many.
I'm sure it was worth the $60 for many people but people rightfully expected a lot more from Blizzard. The name used to mean something. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Twitter 
