73 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >
 |
| 53. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 20, 2012, 06:42 |
DG |
|
|
heroin wrote on May 19, 2012, 17:27:
I am enjoying D3 immensely, right now. Towards the end of ACT 2 things really begin to shine. Glad to read that. Having only just got past the Skeleton King I was finding it a little humdrum. I got the blacksmith now which has opened up a little depth, but it still seems quite shallow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 52. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 20, 2012, 06:13 |
Prez |
|
|
Why didn't everyone flip out about Guild Wars not having offline single player? Aside from everyone being too busy arguing if it should be called an MMORPG or not. There's no real reason why GW couldn't have a separate offline mode, but it didn't and everyone was fine with that.
If Guild Wars had been a follow up to a insanely popular game that millions of people played specifically for its singleplayer and LAN coop modes, then the outcry would have been every bit as loud. If Blizzard would have just called this Diablo Online, there would be many disappointed gamers but not as many detractors. But they didn't; instead they saw fit to insult us with this always-on BS that is a slap in the face to paying customers. On top of that they deliberately designed the game so that the singleplayer was integrated with the online crap on one hand, then, insultingly, they pointed to those same arbitrary restraints that they themselves forced into the singleplayer as an excuse why there is no offline singleplayer.
Handled differently, this would have been a non-story for the most part. As it is, however, Blizzard stepped in it big time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 51. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 20, 2012, 05:02 |
Muscular Beaver |
|
|
deqer wrote on May 19, 2012, 21:03:
Oh, and like that one guy said:
"This game is just running on reputation. Does not deserve the Diablo title."
Yup.
It's the only reason Blizzard could get away with something like this. Any other title they try this with, and people would be like "Nah."
But it's "Diablo 3", and Blizzard knew you'd all bite into it regardless of what Blizzard had in mind for you and the game.
It's sad that so many people bought into this; and it's more sad that they try to defend themselves about it--telling themselves "No! I'm not a fool! ... It's Diablo 3! It's awesome!!!"--and bitching at anyone who doesn't agree.
Welp, have fun leasing your Diablo 3. lulz.
Leasing?
If Im not mistaken at the end of a leasing contract you have the option to buy the product for cheap. Dont see that option here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 50. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 20, 2012, 05:00 |
Muscular Beaver |
|
|
briktal wrote on May 19, 2012, 19:36:
Why didn't everyone flip out about Guild Wars not having offline single player? Aside from everyone being too busy arguing if it should be called an MMORPG or not. There's no real reason why GW couldn't have a separate offline mode, but it didn't and everyone was fine with that.
Possibly because the first 2 parts were playable very well offline and on LAN?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 49. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 20, 2012, 03:48 |
Wowbagger_TIP |
|
|
eunichron wrote on May 19, 2012, 19:50:
Cutter wrote on May 19, 2012, 18:41:
Edit: Just checked Amazon to see if they state anything about online connection required and they don't. So fair enough, maybe some people didn't know, but I still find it hard to believe it's the volume it apparently is.
I just checked my box and it says at the bottom, just above the system requirements, "INTERNET CONNECTION REQUIRED. PLAYER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL APPLICABLE INTERNET FEES. BATTLE.NET REGISTRATION REQUIRED." And it says on page 3 of the manual, "Diablo III is a completely integrated online experience..."
So, it's not for lack of Blizzard getting the information out there, but who actually reads the system requirements and manual anyway? Still doesn't come out and say that you need to be connected constantly, and any little hiccup on their end or yours will boot you from the game. Why don't they just come out and say it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 48. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 20, 2012, 03:46 |
Wowbagger_TIP |
|
|
briktal wrote on May 19, 2012, 19:36:
Why didn't everyone flip out about Guild Wars not having offline single player? Aside from everyone being too busy arguing if it should be called an MMORPG or not. There's no real reason why GW couldn't have a separate offline mode, but it didn't and everyone was fine with that. Actually, that was the main reason I never played it, so not everybody was fine with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 47. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 20, 2012, 03:01 |
Kastagir |
|
|
I liked Diablo 1 and 2 and I was interested to see what 12+ years would mean for the sequel, but the reasons to buy this game are heavily outnumbered by the reasons not to buy. I wonder how long Blizzard can survive by banking on 8-14 year-olds with poor impulse control (oh, and Koreans) before they go under. Sadly, there's always a new crop of these people to step up and pre-order the next shiny new title from Blizzard.
Blizzard, you're going in the "no sale" bin with Bioware and I don't see that changing any time soon. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 46. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 20, 2012, 02:02 |
Cartman |
|
|
I have no intentions of buying this game but I hate to see this type of DRM come into being as it will no doubt lead other publishers to try the same crap with their games.
I guess I will just keep buying GOG type games as I hate DRM of any kind.
PC gaming isn't dead yet but they sure are trying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 45. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 20, 2012, 01:54 |
UnderDown |
|
|
eunichron wrote on May 19, 2012, 19:50:
Cutter wrote on May 19, 2012, 18:41:
Edit: Just checked Amazon to see if they state anything about online connection required and they don't. So fair enough, maybe some people didn't know, but I still find it hard to believe it's the volume it apparently is.
I just checked my box and it says at the bottom, just above the system requirements, "INTERNET CONNECTION REQUIRED. PLAYER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL APPLICABLE INTERNET FEES. BATTLE.NET REGISTRATION REQUIRED." And it says on page 3 of the manual, "Diablo III is a completely integrated online experience..."
So, it's not for lack of Blizzard getting the information out there, but who actually reads the system requirements and manual anyway?
Always-on DRM - INTERNET CONNECTION REQUIRED - isn't just constant checking: it is client/server setup like an MMO, where crticial game data (AI + loot) is managed server side. How many casual followers are going to know this, and more the point, know exactly what this means?
This means anyone who doesn't have a low latency (read under 150-200ms) connection to Blizzard will never have a smooth, flawless gameplay experience (like D1&2, Titan Quest etc). Not even single player.
eg. Australian/NZ players, due to basic physics principles (distance for optic fibre transmission) are finding hell/inferno more difficult than NA players because, at best, they are playing with 200-300ms delay (and most of the time higher than that). Many can't really play at all because they don't have a rock solid fast internet connection.
Unless Blizzard install localised servers, anyone with either large physical distance between them & Blizzard servers, or poor 'net connection can't enjoy the game.
What is more irritating is the thousands of people defending Blizzard for this implementation, usually without understanding the problem.
I've read quite a few reviews of the game: and as this article suggests, many of them either dismiss or completely ignore this aspect. Because this critical flaw is left out, some players could read these reviews and buy the game oblivious to the fact that they may not be able to have a good gameplay experience - EVER - no matter what they do.
This comment was edited on May 20, 2012, 03:53. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 44. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 20, 2012, 00:16 |
Fantaz |
|
|
Creston wrote on May 19, 2012, 23:53:
Fantastic article. Sadly, the large majority of the masses will keep swallowing the paid advertising served to them by flaming shitholes like Gamespot, IGN and their ilk, who are by now nothing more than glorified mouthpieces for publishers.
Thanks for having remained a neutral voice for all these years, Blue. It's starting become a real rarity in the gaming industry, and it's why I continue to enjoy visiting your site every single day.
Creston
Blue doesn't really post much using his voice, it's just news links presented as they are (as they should be). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| proudly fragging noobs in deathmatch since 1999 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 43. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 20, 2012, 00:15 |
Prez |
|
|
| That was the best article by a gaming journalist I've read in a LONG time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 42. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 20, 2012, 00:12 |
Slashman |
|
|
The problem, of course, comes when the gaming journalist stops being a mouthpiece and tries to do good journalism.
At that point, they stop getting exclusive interviews and hands-on. They stop getting juicy advertising deals from the big publishers and are basically relegated to being in the same knowledge pool as us, the ignorant gamer.
We, in turn, then stop reading their magazines and going to their websites because they have nothing there that we didn't know about already. So we end up going to the people who do have some exclusive info...the sell-out gaming journalists.
Even the sites that we tend to look to for the real scoop often pull their punches and stop short of telling us what they really want to say about a game sometimes because they can't afford to completely alienate the guys with the big pockets.
Its a sad state of affairs and I have no idea how to fix it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 41. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 20, 2012, 00:02 |
Kitkoan |
|
|
AnointedSword wrote on May 19, 2012, 22:38:
The funny thing about media is they can take 1 person out of a 100 and make them sound like the majority. Very few know what journalism is anymore. They have learned from the left wing media and all they teach is how to be one sided. There are many happy customers playing D3 without a problem. In most cases people that complain the most are either hackers, pirates, or people that are running dinosaurs rater than computers.
Typical BS argument, sounds just like the excuses for warrantless wiretapping and other forms of Big Brotherism.
"Only criminals and theives would want freedom and privacy. If your not doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't have to worry about being snooped on all the time."
My laptop isn't a dinosaur, but my internet connection isn't great and drops often. Thats why I won't support this.
If thats not enough, go tell every since solitary "pirate, thief and people running a dinosaur" that error 34 was nothing and they are only making it up to justify their actions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| *automatically refuses to place horse heads in anyone's bed* |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 40. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 19, 2012, 23:53 |
Creston |
|
|
Fantastic article. Sadly, the large majority of the masses will keep swallowing the paid advertising served to them by flaming shitholes like Gamespot, IGN and their ilk, who are by now nothing more than glorified mouthpieces for publishers.
Thanks for having remained a neutral voice for all these years, Blue. It's starting become a real rarity in the gaming industry, and it's why I continue to enjoy visiting your site every single day.
Creston |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 39. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 19, 2012, 23:43 |
jdreyer |
|
|
Cutter wrote on May 19, 2012, 18:41:
Also, I see a lot of people just panning the game in general such as this....
Average game. Not worth the money or trouble.
Nothing really new in terms of gameplay with subpar graphics for its time and horrible story.
This game is just running on reputation. Does not deserve the Diablo title.
Yeah, that seems a bit unfair. The beta was fun WHEN I WAS ABLE TO PLAY IT. And I appreciate the oil-painting look of the graphics. And cool mobs that required various strategies to deal with.
But the always-online req for SP is a deal-breaker. Also, Torchlight 2 beta is freakin' awesome, has no connectivity issues, has offline SP, and will be one third the price!
TORCHLIGHT 2. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 38. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 19, 2012, 23:12 |
Sepharo |
|
|
| Hackers and pirates and dinosaurs, oh my! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [I'm not trolling I'm just] tossing stuff like that in there only to get your panties all bunched up. -TrollinThundr |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 37. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 19, 2012, 22:38 |
AnointedSword |
|
|
| The funny thing about media is they can take 1 person out of a 100 and make them sound like the majority. Very few know what journalism is anymore. They have learned from the left wing media and all they teach is how to be one sided. There are many happy customers playing D3 without a problem. In most cases people that complain the most are either hackers, pirates, or people that are running dinosaurs rater than computers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| If you were right, I would be agreeing with you. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 36. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 19, 2012, 22:31 |
Prez |
|
|
Starcraft 2 has the same kind of DRM
No, it doesn't. I have played over 100 hours of Starcraft 2 without being connected to their servers. Starcraft 2 has an offline option, which is all everyone was asking for with Diablo 3. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 35. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 19, 2012, 21:50 |
Slashman |
|
|
I actually pre-ordered Torchlight 2 today.
I'm playing Torchlight 1 now and its not too bad. I do like to support indie companies who deliver polished products and I like ARPGs. Kind of a win-win for me.
D3 is yet another Blizzard game that I'll be skipping...and I honestly am not missing it or Starcraft 2 a whole lot.
My buddy got the starter key from a friend of his who preordered the game and even though he was downloading it and getting ready to play it, he was shocked that it was online only when I told him.
Some people don't stay informed about this stuff. I wonder how many people really didn't realize it was online only when they bought the game. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 34. |
Re: Op Ed |
May 19, 2012, 21:18 |
Kitkoan |
|
|
deqer wrote on May 19, 2012, 21:03:
Oh, and like that one guy said:
"This game is just running on reputation. Does not deserve the Diablo title."
Yup.
It's the only reason Blizzard could get away with something like this. Any other title they try this with, and people would be like "Nah."
But it's "Diablo 3", and Blizzard knew you'd all bite into it regardless of what Blizzard had in mind for you and the game.
It's sad that so many people bought into this; and it's more sad that they try to defend themselves about it--telling themselves "No! I'm not a fool! ... It's Diablo 3! It's awesome!!!"--and bitching at anyone who doesn't agree.
Welp, have fun leasing your Diablo 3. lulz.
One of the reasons Diablo 3 is running on reputation only is no doubt that Diablo 3 isn't made by the people who made Diablo 1 and 2. Its just a bunch of randoms that Blizzard hired and gave access to the IP. The makers of Diablo left a long time ago and formed 2 different gaming companies that seem to be quite big and upcoming.
Maybe you've heard of their newest games they've been making? Guild Wars 2 and Torchlight 2? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| *automatically refuses to place horse heads in anyone's bed* |
|
|
|
|
| |
73 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
