|
|
 |
| [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.
 |
| 41. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jul 7, 2012, 11:04 |
Beamer |
|
|
ASeven wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 16:23:
Beamer wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 15:36:
ASeven wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 11:53:
Beamer wrote on Jul 6, 2012, 10:10:
When people say "indies are more popular than ever before" can we conclude that they weren't alive in the 90s?
Doom? Quake? Duke Nukem? All indies.
Why are indies popular again? Distribution makes them easy to sell, pricing and humble bundles make them easy to buy, rudimentary graphics (in almost all cases) make them easy to make, and mobile/tablet has made simple games incredibly popular (which often turns into a gateway, for devs, to somewhat deeper games.)
Neither were you born there if you use the term indie to classify them. Bedroom programmers yes and by the 90s publishers already had most control over them. It isn't hard for me to back this up, I have all the magazines of that period. The shareware wave was also technically indie but with too many differences of today's indie's mentality which is, stay far away from publishers as possible. THose shareware programmers back then had the opposite attitude.
And saying indies are popular due to current distribution models is like saying gas is popular due to the current distribution model it has for vehicles, you are stating the plain obvious that nobody denies. And the truth is, indies are becoming more popular than mainstream regardless of the distribution methods which should tell you something about your dear publishers.
Wait, so GT had control over Doom and Duke Nukem?
Seriously?
How about you stop putting words in my mouth and how about start reading what you reply to and stop inventing bullshit I didn't write or infer?
ASeven, you said " Bedroom programmers yes and by the 90s publishers already had most control over them."
I claimed indies were never more popular than the 90s. Doom, Duke3D, Quake, etc., all indie. You said I'm wrong to classifiy them as indie because they were bedroom programmers and publishers already had control over them.
Point out where I said something you didn't. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Twitter 
