Diablo III - bigger than politics

[Riddler]

I'll never understand the argument of people who scream about how D3 today isn't as terrible as it was at launch, as if that's some sort of exculpation. It was fucking awful at launch, so I stopped playing it after less than a month and resolved to never give BlizzActivision my money again. Was I supposed to stick with it on the off chance they managed to redeem their fuck up? Life's too short and there are too many games out there. If what their defenders say is true and they did finally manage to turn it around, good for them and whoever picks it up nowadays and gets enjoyment from it, but it's too late for me and that's on them.

People are surprisingly ready (especially for this place) to hand over their cash to bad games, or devs who've fucked up massively or who deride and spit on their fanbase. Look at all the people here creaming their pants waiting to preorder the new Bloodlines, despite it being very obvious how that's going to turn out. Look at the 'Don't you people have phones?' shit.

I just don't get it. It's not like the games 'scene' or whatever has significantly improved since it became a multi-billion dollar industry. On the contrary, it's gotten much worse. So starve the beast. Stop rushing to squeeze into your Wonderbra and driving over there every time they text you at 1am with 'Hey bb u up?'. It's not like there's not enough decent old/free shit for people to play. You could spend your life only on games released more than ten years ago and still die before you run out of top quality shit. Or sail the high seas and then purchase only the games that you know are actually decent. Either way, the industry isn't going to get better if people keep being such thirsty bitches.

I too stopped playing in disgust after about a week but I got pulled in about a year ago when some friends were playing and discovered that it had become a completely different game.

Sure the graphics are disgrace the story a crime against humanity but running rifts and creating builds with different sets is actually pretty fun. It should be noted however that the game starts at lvl 70. Everything before that is dog-shit.

I will never buy a blizzard game at launch again (maybe never buy a blizzard game period) but D3 in its current state is enjoyable if you play it multiplayer rifting. Play it single player and you're retarded.

 

[thesheeep]

Play it single player and you're retarded.

Which is a pretty astounding statement for a game that is first and foremost a single player game, as are all games of its kind

 

[Mastermind]

Diablo 3 suffers from the same problem, imagine having an edgy/grimdark/gothic game like Diablo 2:

And turning it into this:

You're just a dumbfuck.

No, you're just another lying hypocritical piece of shit. All you are doing is cherrypicking screenshots where nothing is happening in D3 because you are literally in either a transition zone or before a skeleton boss (with no blood, duh). Diablo 3 is still edgy and grimdark, it just more closely resemble 80s cartoons (Thundarr the Barbarian, Galtar and the Golden Lance, and to a lesser extent Thundercats) than torture porn. That doesn't make it a bad game, it just makes it different. It's still the best arpg out there for people who want to stick to single player and don't want to devote their life to a game.

And while we're on this topic, how the fuck can you complain about Diablo 3 being cartoonish then recommending fucking Torchlight 2, a game with Warcraft 3 levels of cartoonish graphics.

Edgy GRIMDARK game where you slaughter abominations in gothic cathedrals

vs

Hillbilly fishing simulator

Is this how you do it?

Go fuck yourself.

 

[Mastermind]

Play it single player and you're retarded.

Which is a pretty astounding statement for a game that is first and foremost a single player game, as are all games of its kind

Diablo 2 was virtually unplayable as a single player game unless you're genuinely autistic. The drop rates were atrocious. That was the main problem with diablo 3 at launch, they tried to "fix" this problem by letting you buy and sell items for real money, which just encouraged degenerate gameplay like botting. The only reason why Diablo 2 had a healthy economy even in multiplayer is because of cheaters.

Diablo 3 otoh is perfectly playable in single player without botting or modding and the game doesn't require you to waste years of your life grinding 2000 hours just to get one runeword.

 

[Reinhardt]

Edgy GRIMDARK game where you slaughter abominations in gothic cathedrals

Nigga, even i know it's not basic Diablo 3 game.
And it still looks like shit.

 

[Mastermind]

I'll never understand the argument of people who scream about how D3 today isn't as terrible as it was at launch, as if that's some sort of exculpation.

It is. That game LITERALLY NO LONGER EXISTS. Why should I avoid playing a very good game because it used to be shit? Fallout NV literally launched with a bug that destroyed your saves, should nobody play that either?

These arguments always come out only against games where you get kodex kool kredits to hate on.

 

[Mastermind]

Edgy GRIMDARK game where you slaughter abominations in gothic cathedrals

Nigga, even i know it's not basic Diablo 3 game. And it still looks like shit.

It looks fine for a 7 year old game (i'm not even running it on full settings), and the whole point was to cherrypick screenshots like that other cocksucker did.

 

[Shadenuat]

Diablo 3 is so ugly and unnimersive that even if it was free, even if they paid me to play it, I still wouldn't play it.

 

[what am i doing]

It should be noted however that the game starts at lvl 70. Everything before that is dog-shit.

That's especially disappointing when its predecessor is fun from the very start.

Diablo 2 was virtually unplayable as a single player game unless you're genuinely autistic. The drop rates were atrocious.

"I can't get high end runes/rare items, the game is VIRTUALLY UNPLAYABLE!" Yeah nah, singleplayer simply meant that you actually had to use gear you found instead of the perfect optimal item for some build or other.

 

[Mastermind]

"I can't get high end runes/rare items, the game is VIRTUALLY UNPLAYABLE!"

100% correct. There's a couple of builds which can beat the game without high end items, and my greatest achievement remains beating nightmare with a zon using skystrike and spirit shroud, but there's only so many times i can play a summoner necro before I get fed up with it. the game is simply unbeatable without at least some top tier items, so while you can just "play with what you find" you'll be lucky to get past nightmare doing that.

There's a reason why no diablo clone after 2 made it as difficult to get top tier items as d2 did.

 

[Covenant]

I'll never understand the argument of people who scream about how D3 today isn't as terrible as it was at launch, as if that's some sort of exculpation.

It is. That game LITERALLY NO LONGER EXISTS. Why should I avoid playing a very good game because it used to be shit? Fallout NV literally launched with a bug that destroyed your saves, should nobody play that either?

These arguments always come out only against games where you get kodex kool kredits to hate on.

Did you miss the part directly below what you quoted where I said that if it really turned around and people are picking it up and enjoying it then good for them?

You're the one here trying to convince us all that Diablo III is great. Your very first post in this thread is bitching about other people still complaining about its faults at launch.

Perhaps you're more forgiving than most here. And if you want to give the guy who slapped you around that one time another chance, awesome, it's your business - but don't act like the rest of us are idiots for not doing so. The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of Blizzard. Particularly given how much they were warned by the playerbase before it even launched that they were making stupid decisions. Ignoring fans and sneering at criticism (remember how they acted when people edited their early screenshots in an attempt to make the game actually look dark, rather than cartoony?) doesn't exactly engender me toward buying the expansion in the hope that it fixes the game.

There's potentially a case to be made for your original argument but you chose a very poor example with Diablo III, and it's not like there weren't a bunch of good ones just hanging there all low and ripe.

 

[Reinhardt]

Perhaps you're more forgiving than most here.

 

[Mastermind]

You're the one here trying to convince us all that Diablo III is great.

No, I don't expect anyone here to be convinced it's great because the motivations of most people here have nothing to do with the game's quality (including yours). What I am doing is demonstrating that the arguments against it are not based on the game's quality but on conforming to herd mentality.

If people simply said they didn't like it that's fine. I got bored easily by Torchlight 2 but I don't think it's a bad game. I played and loved Diablo 2 in spite of some major flaws and it really is a great game. I don't feel the need to make up bullshit or lie about a game I didn't especially like just to fit in with the Kool Krowd.

 

[thesheeep]

And while we're on this topic, how the fuck can you complain about Diablo 3 being cartoonish then recommending fucking Torchlight 2, a game with Warcraft 3 levels of cartoonish graphics.

Edgy GRIMDARK game where you slaughter abominations in gothic cathedrals

So, you seriously thought showing us this picture would somehow convince anyone that Diablo 3 does not look like a WoW cartoon world?
Everything in that picture looks cartoonish, from the textures to the models to the icons to the ....

I mean, sure, bloody cathedral cartoon, but cartoon nonetheless. You just proved everyone's point.
It's not like there's much to argue here. I played it, I'm sure most others here did as well. It just looks cartoonish, there's no denying it.

 

[Mastermind]

And while we're on this topic, how the fuck can you complain about Diablo 3 being cartoonish then recommending fucking Torchlight 2, a game with Warcraft 3 levels of cartoonish graphics.

Edgy GRIMDARK game where you slaughter abominations in gothic cathedrals

So, you seriously thought showing us this picture would somehow convince anyone that Diablo 3 does not look like a WoW cartoon world?
Everything in that picture looks cartoonish, from the textures to the models to the icons to the ....

I mean, sure, bloody cathedral cartoon, but cartoon nonetheless. You just proved everyone's point.
It's not like there's much to argue here. I played it, I'm sure most others here did as well. It just looks cartoonish, there's no denying it.

What was the point of even writing this post? I already said D3 looks like a cartoon since before this thread was even split off. I'm not the one complaining that it looks like a cartoon then recommending fucking Torchlight 2 like a shameless retard. D3 = 80s cartoon. Which suits me just fine. I'm not even sure it's possible to replicate the D1/D2 gothic horror feel in 3D, just like it's been hard for ID to replicate the doom 1/2 experience in true 3d.

 

[shihonage]

Diablo 3 retardation reminder:

• Magic classes wielding melee weapons which dictate magic power thru physical damage. No more wands for Necromancer, bows for Amazon or whatever - that shit's for uncool nerds! Whatever blunt object of destruction you hold, dictates your power! Martial artist class gets stronger by holding an axe which he actually isn't holding in animations, and which isn't worked into his moves!
  
• No longer based on Roguelike concepts - dungeon randomization is gimped due to large un-fragmentable art assets and retarded story design which literally results in long chunks of you going in a straight line.
• Game is full of NPCs halting gameplay for long inane monologues, while Diablo2 never actually interrupted gameplay and let them say things in background.
  
• Game control feels floaty and imprecise due to 3D graphics "smooth animations" (imprecise stopping/starting due to physics or whatnot).
  
• Everything looks like World of Warcraft - not Diablo. When 60k+ fans signed petition on the subject, Blizzard mocked them. When same happened with Starcraft 2, they suddenly listened and actually adjusted the game to look authentically Starcraft - because Korea and stuff.
  
• Custom death animations for each entity replaced with ragdoll physics.
• Now the roided-out Barbarian is equal in wisdom to Deckard Cain, as he can identify unknown items, without having to use scrolls, or, you know, go to town to talk to Deckard Cain...
• ... because Blizzard killed Deckard Cain...
• ... as part of their general plan to make town downtime dedicated to listening to retarded NPC banter instead of doing anything mechanical, like using your Gold to purchase identify scrolls or Town Portals...
• ... which were also streamlined to limit their usage as part of the Jay Wilson's retarded plan to make everyone into a One-Man Army in Diablo 3...
• ... with classes no longer having meaningful synergies or really needing each other's help...
• Game is gimped to the point where when they finally added Necromancer, it became a melee class...

Have to leave for work now but you get the idea.

 

[Angthoron]

So I see some people are giving "Not sure if serious" to my statement of Diablo 2 being fucking ugly. Yes, it is fucking ugly for a game that came out from a company as big as Blizzard, in the year 2000. I know, it's a semi-random, tileset-based game so it won't look like a game hat had everything painstakingly crafted to look like a painting, but holy shit did it look like ass compared to games that came out the same year.

And this was in the age when it was acceptable for the RPG and the RPG subgenres to not have good graphics even when published by bigger companies.

 

[Dedicated_Dark]

The fact that you only have access to 4 skills at a time and there is no build dedication. The fact that my void mage is a void mage only when I feel like playing a void mage makes Di-fckn-ablo '3' utter GARBAGE!

That is not choice that is non-committal. It's like a marriage where you can fck everyone, that is not a fckn marriage where is mah loyalty!!

 

[what am i doing]

100% correct. There's a couple of builds which can beat the game without high end items

Bruh, any half decent build can beat the game without "high end items" it is just less of a faceroll. Unless your definition of "beat the game" includes some shit like uber trist where you need a ton of CB/OW to kill ubers, but that's a retarded definition of beating the game. Killing Baal is beating the game.

 

[thesheeep]

So I see some people are giving "Not sure if serious" to my statement of Diablo 2 being fucking ugly. Yes, it is fucking ugly for a game that came out from a company as big as Blizzard, in the year 2000. I know, it's a semi-random, tileset-based game so it won't look like a game hat had everything painstakingly crafted to look like a painting, but holy shit did it look like ass compared to games that came out the same year.

And this was in the age when it was acceptable for the RPG and the RPG subgenres to not have good graphics even when published by bigger companies.

What game came out in 2000 and looked better than D2?
That was early 3D era. Early 3D was mostly ugly, while D2 has just nice pixel art (though nowadays it's pretty low-res). Imagine how catastrophically bad it would have looked if they went 3D I mean... have you seen Warcraft 3?

 

[Angthoron]

So I see some people are giving "Not sure if serious" to my statement of Diablo 2 being fucking ugly. Yes, it is fucking ugly for a game that came out from a company as big as Blizzard, in the year 2000. I know, it's a semi-random, tileset-based game so it won't look like a game hat had everything painstakingly crafted to look like a painting, but holy shit did it look like ass compared to games that came out the same year.

And this was in the age when it was acceptable for the RPG and the RPG subgenres to not have good graphics even when published by bigger companies.

What game came out in 2000 and looked better than D2?
That was early 3D era. Early 3D was mostly ugly, while D2 has just nice pixel art (though nowadays it's pretty low-res). Imagine how catastrophically bad it would have looked if they went 3D I mean... have you seen Warcraft 3?

Well okay so the year is 2000. Which RPGs look better than D2?

Let's see:

Baldur's Gate 2
Icewind Dale
Nox
Deus Ex
VtM: Redemption (AGNIEZSKA!!!!)
M&M 8 (Arguably)
System Shock 2 (Arguably not an RPG)

I'm not even counting the japanese stuff.

 

[Mastermind]

100% correct. There's a couple of builds which can beat the game without high end items

Bruh, any half decent build can beat the game without "high end items" it is just less of a faceroll. Unless your definition of "beat the game" includes some shit like uber trist where you need a ton of CB/OW to kill ubers, but that's a retarded definition of beating the game. Killing Baal is beating the game.

Not in single player (which is what we were talking about).

Some builds (IE: most sorcs, esp single element ones) can't even damage elemental immune monsters without infinity on a merc (well, i guess you could use lower resistance curse wands + teleporting past mobs and hope they lower resistances enough that you can actually dent all the unique mobs before baal) and i've gotten stuck on baal's throne room because lister + minions of destruction were outregenerating any damage I did with my shit gear.

 

[Mastermind]

Diablo 3 retardation reminder:

• Magic classes wielding melee weapons which dictate magic power thru physical damage.

Please go away, we've already rehashed your stupid claim that it "makes no sense" to use weapons as a magical focus in a fictional fantasy setting repeatedly. It's just as dumb now as it was the last one thousand times you brought this up.

Game is gimped to the point where when they finally added Necromancer, it became a melee class...

D3 necro has the same number of melee skills that D2 did (one). It's just that it's actually usable by a normal person.

 

[thesheeep]

So I see some people are giving "Not sure if serious" to my statement of Diablo 2 being fucking ugly. Yes, it is fucking ugly for a game that came out from a company as big as Blizzard, in the year 2000. I know, it's a semi-random, tileset-based game so it won't look like a game hat had everything painstakingly crafted to look like a painting, but holy shit did it look like ass compared to games that came out the same year.

And this was in the age when it was acceptable for the RPG and the RPG subgenres to not have good graphics even when published by bigger companies.

What game came out in 2000 and looked better than D2?
That was early 3D era. Early 3D was mostly ugly, while D2 has just nice pixel art (though nowadays it's pretty low-res). Imagine how catastrophically bad it would have looked if they went 3D I mean... have you seen Warcraft 3?

Well okay so the year is 2000. Which RPGs look better than D2?

Let's see:

Baldur's Gate 2
Icewind Dale
Nox
Deus Ex
VtM: Redemption (AGNIEZSKA!!!!)
M&M 8 (Arguably)
System Shock 2 (Arguably not an RPG)

BG2 and IWD sure look awesome... but those are pre-rendered images throughout, including stuff like chests. You simply cannot do something like that for a game like D2.
Nox? Ehh... no.
VtM: Redemption? Are you mocking me?
Everything after that doesn't have anywhere near the same requirements when it comes to what needs to be displayed on screen at the same time (and at which speed), so that's just not a fair comparison.

And honestly, D2 still looks nice (albeit pretty low-res) and atmospheric today. You are probably the first person I've ever seen saying that D2 looks ugly.

 

[Shadenuat]

The important part was that D2 supported shitton of monsters on the screen. When it came out people did laf at its 640 480 though it is true. But also got addicted to gameplay so quickly that forgot about it.