Did you play or buy Diablo 3?

[General Maxson]

Ruining Diablo 3? is that the same game that sold 10mil copies? Nah, I believe D3 is doing just fine, and I'm one of the few here who likely didn't play or buy it. R00fles!

Let's find out if there is any truth to Volourn.

Never touched the thing, though I did play 1 and 2. However, a purchase for Diablo 3 gives indirect support to ridiculous levels of DRM. This is the same reason why I am not big on Steam. We're running into an era where companies believe they have a right to put extra software unto my computer and monitor my activities while I'm online just so I can play their games (yes, I am aware I can go offline with Steam). When you purchase Diablo 3 you really haven't purchased a game. You have purchased software that can only be played at the whim of Blizzard, and if Blizzard's servers are down you can't game. Which means that in a manner Blizzard still retains a level of ownership despite you handing them money. Nothing good will come of this.

A sad future awaits us, indeed.

 

[villain of the story]

Speaking of which, I have watched D3 cinematics and mother of god, it's full of suck. Diablo 2 cinematics had class. This was just retarded juvenile shit. Fucking Blizzard.

 

[DraQ]

Oh wow. So now atmosphere is all that matters in a game.

Actually it matters a lot.
A lot more than story in fact - having a story or good story is not strictly a requirement in game, but *some* atmosphere is inevitable and happens to permeate the entire game.

If we accept that PS:T was great thanks to the story alone, we have to accept that games exist that were made great thanks to their atmosphere and little else.

Diablo is not a game, it's a clickfest. Diablo is barely above something like bejeweled as far as interesting gameplay mechanics go. If I wanted to play something that is centered on action I'd play something a little more involved than click-to-win&grind.

Sorry, but you're being completely wrong here.

First, Diablo (I'm speaking of D1, of course) doesn't involve grind. It's a game with finite number of enemies and thus a finite XP and potential drop pool. It's physically impossible to grind in D1.

Second, Diablo isn't click to win. Sure, if you rerun the game with already powerful character it will be boring clickfest, but on your first playthrough you will need at least some modicum of thought to survive. There are unique monsters that hit hard and have entourage of buffed normals, there are wide open rooms with tons of ranged attackers, there is Butcher, there are those horned fucks, there may be whole levels of ranged elemental attackers latter on (often without any worthwhile %resist items dropping in that game), there are heavy hitters, and there is pattern of walls, doors, and unpassable terrain to use to your advantage.

Diablo may be guilty of dumbing down and most shit plaguing modern cRPGs including potion spam, Diablo is hardly a sophisticated game, but you can't just click your way to victory in it as death is very easy.

Now Diablo 2 fit's your description like a glove. It has grind thanks to lack of persistency and ability to do raids, it has victory via many clicks, as relative threat posed by mobs is much lower and so on.

Never touched the thing, though I did play 1 and 2. However, a purchase for Diablo 3 gives indirect support to ridiculous levels of DRM. This is the same reason why I am not big on Steam. We're running into an era where companies believe they have a right to put extra software unto my computer and monitor my activities while I'm online just so I can play their games (yes, I am aware I can go offline with Steam). When you purchase Diablo 3 you really haven't purchased a game. You have purchased software that can only be played at the whim of Blizzard, and if Blizzard's servers are down you can't game. Which means that in a manner Blizzard still retains a level of ownership despite you handing them money. Nothing good will come of this.

This.

At least with steam you can pretty much stay in offline mode indefinitely as long as you're not installing/updating shit.

 

[Luzur]

i watched an LP of it on youtube, but only some 2-3 episodes.

does that count?

 

[Revenant]

i watched an LP of it on youtube, but only some 2-3 episodes.

does that count?

No, it doesn't. Searching the Piratebay however, does.

 

[Daemongar]

Speaking of which, I have watched D3 cinematics and mother of god, it's full of suck. Diablo 2 cinematics had class. This was just retarded juvenile shit. Fucking Blizzard.

I finished Normal, and I ended up watching about half of each cinematic. It was so staggering the level of self importance to a boring rehash of the first two stories, but it was just a thinly veiled method of masking the lack of content. A fancy window dressing to a dismal game. Here, you walk and nominally interact on a gloomy landscape, walking around and clicking on shit.

To be honest, the cut scenes and the action on the ground were so out of whack I wondered if the cut scene makers even had a clue as to what I was playing...

 

[waywardOne]

The anime chick in the previews told me all I needed to know about this shit game.

 

[Metro]

Apparently anyone with a Battle.net account can download the preview/trial (which I guess is Act I) -- haven't bothered.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

Apparently anyone with a Battle.net account can download the preview/trial (which I guess is Act I) -- haven't bothered.

First third of Act I: same content as the beta.

 

[The Round Peg]

I finished Normal, and I ended up watching about half of each cinematic. It was so staggering the level of self importance to a boring rehash of the first two stories, but it was just a thinly veiled method of masking the lack of content. A fancy window dressing to a dismal game...

To be honest, the cut scenes and the action on the ground were so out of whack I wondered if the cut scene makers even had a clue as to what I was playing...

StarCraft II had awful, awful cut scenes. I checked out the YouTube videos. The writing and voice acting were so over-the-top that they were cringeworthy. The story and storytelling (those were two different concepts BTW) were absolutely horrible. I could never understand how anyone could even say Blizzard games had "good story". Every time I see or read that, I feel an urge to smack the fan boy silly in his head.

 

[Vendigroth]

The open BETA actually gave me some hope for the game. Unfortunately, after having paid full price and investing some considerable time to reach the "fun" that was early release Inferno made the game pretty much unplayable. Constantly building up your item set only to see your build nerfed a few days later was hell on your gold, and the inexcusable shafting of the MF'ing system -- the very basis for D2's success (as well as PvP) -- made restocking that gold boil down to chest runs all day long. Making more in a day of chest runs than a week of killing monsters speaks volumes of how poorly designed the game was. It's as if they had a list of all the pros/cons of Diablo 2 and challenged themselves to make a game with none of the pros. Atrocious. I wouldn't be upset if quite a few people lose their jobs over the game, but lord knows it probably sold like hotcakes.

 

[RK47]

didn't kerrigan get cured at the end of starcraft 2 wings of liberals?

 

[Ninja Destroyer]

Didn't bother with beta. Didn't bother with final game. Have no intention of ever doing so.

 

[Modron]

Didn't bother with beta. Didn't bother with final game. Have no intention of ever doing so.

Ever since warcraft 3, I have been saying that Blizzard should get out of the gaming market and just make movies; only the koreans and wowtards still care for their games

 

[Shagnak]

Haven't played. Never will.
Doesn't sound like I'm missing anything, and any urges to repetitively destroy hordes of creatures with my +5 Sword of Penis Size Compensation can be sated by plenty of other options.

 

[Daemongar]

I finished Normal, and I ended up watching about half of each cinematic. It was so staggering the level of self importance to a boring rehash of the first two stories, but it was just a thinly veiled method of masking the lack of content. A fancy window dressing to a dismal game...

To be honest, the cut scenes and the action on the ground were so out of whack I wondered if the cut scene makers even had a clue as to what I was playing...

StarCraft II had awful, awful cut scenes. I checked out the YouTube videos. The writing and voice acting were so over-the-top that they were cringeworthy. The story and storytelling (those were two different concepts BTW) were absolutely horrible. I could never understand how anyone could even say Blizzard games had "good story". Every time I see or read that, I feel an urge to smack the fan boy silly in his head.

Yeah, if anything, I believe Blizzard is going for dumbed down games, over the top cinematics, and massive marketing. Everyone knows why, but I'll just say it: the desire to expand a market to include female gamers. I'm not holding all females accountable, just female gamers: their desire to shit all over mans business and their enablers in the video game industry. Can you meet both the needs of both males and females in one game? No.

 

[Statik]

Didn't bother with beta. Didn't bother with final game. Have no intention of ever doing so.

Ever since warcraft 3, I have been saying that Blizzard should get out of the gaming market and just make movies; only the koreans and wowtards still care for their games

On the subject of wowtards, how can anyone buy something that looks like this:

with a straight face? How can anyone look at that thing, realize that they paid money for it, then still be able to look at their own reflection in the mirror without being overwhelmed with shame?

 

[DraQ]

Yeah, if anything, I believe Blizzard is going for dumbed down games, over the top cinematics, and massive marketing. Everyone knows why, but I'll just say it: the desire to expand a market to include female gamers. I'm not holding all females accountable, just female gamers: their desire to shit all over mans business and their enablers in the video game industry. Can you meet both the needs of both males and females in one game? No.

It's not female gamers, it's female "gamers".

There are actual female gamers out there, but having their gaming preferences defined by being gamers rather than females they play the same stuff as male gamers and don't give a shit.

Female "gamers", OTOH are just non-gaming females that have sand in their vaginas and demand non-gamer games for them because they are female and stuff.

On the subject of wowtards, how can anyone buy something that looks like this:

with a straight face?

By being a furfag.

Honestly, it's it being a WoW that would bother me, not "I WANT TO BE A PANDA".

 

[Zeronet]

I saw online only and thought 'screw this bullshit'. Plus i heard the hype that it was going to have more lore and quality dialogue it turned out to be nonsense.

 

[Kraszu]

I finished Normal, and I ended up watching about half of each cinematic. It was so staggering the level of self importance to a boring rehash of the first two stories, but it was just a thinly veiled method of masking the lack of content. A fancy window dressing to a dismal game...

To be honest, the cut scenes and the action on the ground were so out of whack I wondered if the cut scene makers even had a clue as to what I was playing...

StarCraft II had awful, awful cut scenes. I checked out the YouTube videos. The writing and voice acting were so over-the-top that they were cringeworthy. The story and storytelling (those were two different concepts BTW) were absolutely horrible. I could never understand how anyone could even say Blizzard games had "good story". Every time I see or read that, I feel an urge to smack the fan boy silly in his head.

Yeah, if anything, I believe Blizzard is going for dumbed down games, over the top cinematics, and massive marketing. Everyone knows why, but I'll just say it: the desire to expand a market to include female gamers. I'm not holding all females accountable, just female gamers: their desire to shit all over mans business and their enablers in the video game industry. Can you meet both the needs of both males and females in one game? No.

Females like over the top cinematics? Since when? How does SC 2, and D3 carter to females? There is a trend now to make games more like shitty B level actions movies, but those are mostly watched by males.

 

[Revenant]

On the subject of wowtards, how can anyone buy something that looks like this:

with a straight face?

By being a furfag.

Honestly, it's it being a WoW that would bother me, not "I WANT TO BE A PANDA".

I was too quite disturbed about this new Pandaria product for WoW, my first reaction was "WTF is this shit?" At its release time, WoW seemed like a totally serious game, keeping in mind all the lore prepared by Warcraft III, which I thought was very good. However, with Cataclysm some humorous nonsense crept into the game, and now there is a Panda themed expansion? Come on, how could a game decline from being all serious to some retarded theme park? FYI, I never payed subscription for WoW, only played a game for ~30 minutes when the free 10 day trial came out.

 

[Daemongar]

Females like over the top cinematics? Since when? How does SC 2, and D3 carter to females? There is a trend now to make games more like shitty B level actions movies, but those are mostly watched by males.

Yeah, who would think that the cinematics for D3 were meant for gamer girls, you know, at the 5:00 or so mark where a teary eyed Leah weeps over the body of Deckard Caine and practically has intercourse with an angel. Are you high, or have they gotten to you too?! "I will finish, Uncle, I will carry on for you!" spoken over a burning pyre. Every cinematic is of Leah. You know how I know it's meant to appeal to women? Leah's fully dressed in all of them, even in portions that it would be perfectly fine to show her in the tattered, revealing remnants of her once sensible attire.

 

[Average Manatee]

It's catering to women because you don't get to see her tits?

The story focuses on her because she is the main character of the story. It's really that simple.

 

[DraQ]

At its release time, WoW seemed like a totally serious game, keeping in mind all the lore prepared by Warcraft III

You mean the game I looked at, saw shitty cartoonish 3D graphics, thought

'k.

and never bothered even reading about again?

Come on, how could a game decline from being all serious to some retarded theme park?

How can a WoW style MMO be anything but?
The very design philosophy of those screams themepark - no persistency, raids, etc.

 

[Daemongar]

The story focuses on her because she is the main character of the story. It's really that simple.

So... they invented this girl, made her the niece of Deckard Cain, then created a bunch of movies about her with her crying, burning him, swearing revenge, and showing a love interest in Tyrial before she died to appeal to guys? The jaded side of me would say that adding her to the story was a crass marketing move that pissed on the game in order to try to mine the girl gamer demographic (amongst other changes that ultimately dumbed down an already simple franchise.) You say she was in the cinematics because she was in the story, but I'd say she did fuck all for the story but add overwrought emotion. Who asked for that, or more precisely, who were they trying to appeal to? For comparison, watch the Diablo 2 cinematics. Dark, depressing, right tone, and what we expect.

Also, I doubt that was the end of Diablo "forever" as Tyrial sez, and they totally ripped off LotR and the Balrog for Diablo with that hot fire yell and all. I might as well say that since I endured the 15 minute horror of watching these movies.