Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

34. Re: No Diablo III PC/PS4 Play Feb 26, 2013, 11:24 Verno
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Feb 26, 2013, 10:49:
The Starter Edition (demo) gives you a good indication of what the game's like and if you can't determine whether you like the game or not from that then perhaps "idiot" is the appropriate term.

There is a huge difference between Act 1 Normal and Act 3 Inferno for example. The base gameplay doesn't always tell the full story. This is pretty obvious even as many people judged the game early based on the first act and were let down by the finished product. Many people expect Diablo games to "start" after the first difficulty even, the replay value is part of its pedigree. To Blizzards credit however, they were offering full refunds for the first 90 days so I don't think people can play the "rip off" card.

I disagree. In comparison to games like Torchlight 1 & 2 it as much greater longevity, even though I like those games. The trouble was that people had built up unreasonable expectations and then all turned on the game because of the required internet connection.

You're welcome to your opinion but I disagree. You're playing revisionist history here, people "turned" on the game for many reasons, not simply because of the persistent connection requirement (its sales are a testament to that even). People had pretty fair expectations given the development time, the brand in question and a previous product to base it on. I don't know why you keep making comparisons to Torchlight games either, that's a straw man. They are games made by a 30 person company, not a 300+ development team with unlimited time and resources. They are in the same genre but not really in the same league.

I do. It's the same bullshit we hear every time. Torchlight 2 wasn't developed around consoles but it didn't have the same longevity or depth as D3 - it's still a great game in its own right, better in some aspects, but consoles had no basis in its shortcomings.

It's really not the same bullshit though, peoples problems with Diablo 3 were myriad and many design decisions were puzzling. It's not really unreasonable to look back in retrospect and wonder if the console port affected some of them, if anything it's more reasonable to consider all variables than to dismiss them outright. To act like they developed the console port in a vacuum isn't realistic, obviously concessions were made considering the technical limitations of consoles, what impact they had is up for debate.

Consoles do have a negative impact on a lot of games but not on games where the PC is the primary platform (Diablo 3, Team Fortress 2, The Witcher 2). People said the same bullshit about The Witcher 2 because it supported controllers, when that is something expected of a modern game.

It really depends on the game obviously. To use one of your examples though, I guess you don't remember the release user interface in The Witcher 2 which was very poorly designed to accommodate gamepads (console or otherwise).

This comment was edited on Feb 26, 2013, 11:35.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Divinity Original Sin, Destiny, Fire Emblem
Watching: Continuum, Star Trek TNG, Haunt
 
Subject
  
Optional
Message
 
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.
 




footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo