Diablo 3? It Get's Worse. Blizzard Makes A Mess Of It.

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by seedofchucky

 

I would be very interested to hear what you think of the game " Second Life " ?

Secondlife isn't a game, it a virtual environment. There is no plot or point, it is...build a world as you deem fit...so ya...about as much a game as yahoo messenger is a game mixed with a box of legos (but with super fancy graphics).

I am a gamer, I also go on secondlife....SL is not a game.

Originally posted by listerofsmeg
i just keep my expectations of games really low so im never disapointed.
todays gaming industry sucks.
profit over quality seems very ripe these days.

Disagree
DISAGREE!!!

Skyrim. Aces
Mass Effect franchise. Aces (minus last 15 minutes)
Left 4 Dead franchise. Aces
Witcher 2. ...confusing..but potential Aces (trying to get into it...confusing)
Minecraft. Curiously amusing
Bioshock. Aces (not 2 though, that is difficult to get into...but thats just my opinion)
Fallout series. Aces (with a few moments of meh).
I could go on and on actually...
Point is, todays gaming industry is very strong and solid in comparison to any other year.

I don't mind the Diablo 3 requiring online connection to play. seems more of an anti-piracy thing. good solution. I don't think the pay thing will work well though..thats lame.

anyone got a free game pass for diablo 3. id like to try this game before i wast my money on it. u2u me a code.

reply to post by SaturnFX


All of those games don't compare to classic titles. When you think about it, most of them offer a lot less than what games used to offer. looks like i missed out on the age of substance.

reply to post by listerofsmeg


It's not terrible, but its certainly not as good as it used to be

Originally posted by GambitVII
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

All of those games don't compare to classic titles. When you think about it, most of them offer a lot less than what games used to offer. looks like i missed out on the age of substance.

Trying to think of what classic games your discussing...pacman?
how classic we going here? I started gaming when Pong was an achievement and have been pretty steady since...I quite liked the games as they came and went, and have seen only a increase in quality over the progression.

Some suggest that there is more put into graphics now than depth. I disagree to an extent...yes, complexity is lost in some areas. This often comes by listening to the community though..a game gets popular, the devs make a new game, but ask the community what they liked and disliked...they cut out the stuff with more bad than good. new title, even more popular, same thing, cut out even more of the stuff that people didn't like...thing is, the larger an audience grows, the dumber the audience gets...eventually you are dealing with a bunch of average IQ casual gamers, and the games over time reflect that.

So, the game developers themselves are not really to blame...the audience demanding things get simple is...a game can have outstanding graphics and not lose complexity though is the point...that is not a give and take..that is a actual listening to the audience (unfortunately).

But, there are still games of depth that will blow anything away, along with having outstanding cutting edge graphics...just got to know where to look. There are soo many games out now, that a person can feel overwhelmed.
Something to consider though, given the fact that the more popular a game becomes, the dumber it gets (to expand the audience), if you want to find quality games of complexity and engine, then you got to look at the games not being too loudly broadcast.

Anyhow, give me a "classic" game title, and I will point you in a general direction of similar feel, but updated for todays day and age.
Kings quest: Elder Scrolls
Quest For Glory: Witcher
Sonic: ...well, Sonic. heh

Many people claim that gaming isn't as good as it once was, the glory days and all..but rarely do people give examples...more of a general feel without the ability to put their finger on it.
I think people are just being a bit nostalgic towards how they -felt- when they played a game verses any actual engine issue.
back in the day, games didn't have 3000 competing titles...you didn't have 10 other games with better this or that to compare it to. You played the game, it was pretty much the only game of that month to play, no comparison, so it was something different and new...now, variety comes comparison, loss of attention, etc.

GTA is a good series to look at. When GTA3 came out, people got blown away...now a "GTA like" sandbox city is the norm. Each new invention has far more stuff you can do, but we find it less and less unique due to it not being the same new mind blowing experience as GTA3's transition...doesn't mean these games are crap..just means we are getting a bit spoiled.

I try to step back often and look at a game for what its worth...the story, the character development, the graphics, the engine, etc...and all of them are often quite good. Certainly much better than pong. I have no big complaints for todays gaming industry...but I got tons of suggestions.

reply to post by SaturnFX


LoL

SaturnFX you really are an invested shill

I can honestly say I am shocked at your aggressive defense of this fantasy title.

reply to post by SaturnFX


*THIS FIRST PARAGRAPH IS IMPORTANT.
I can give you a worlds full of examples because I know what it's like to be a 'modern day gamer'
In fact, I didn't play these kinds games these people are referring to until AFTER I prestieged 10 times in MW2 an 5 times in Black Ops. As you can see, My exposure to many classic games didn't start until only VERY recently. And I'm dead serious because I broke my oath to play only '9+/A+' rated titles.

Mass Effect, Halo, and all that other stuff that was big a few years back were on my list of sure to play games. But doing my share of research, evaluation of my experiences, and taking the time to understand those experiences objectively, I sincerely can not agree with your sentiments.

I've already given examples, I gave a huge one in our discussion about indoctrination. I brought up 999 and Xenogears and I can easily bring up a number of other titles as well with good reason. I can also bring up older Bioware titles like Baldurs Gates 2 and System Shock to counter Bioshock and Mass Effect / Dargon Age. And we can discuss those right here right now but there's something more important that has to be said.

As i always say, do your research because it's for you to understand, not me. i'll put it this way to make it clear: Today's juggernaut titles simply does not have the level of substance that games of the previous generations did.

And to use your pac-man as an example, games today like angry birds can't match the simplicity and expansive mechanics that Pac-Man had. Angry birds is fun and it has it's level of skill, but Pac-man is a title that can be played competitively to such an extent that there is a large gap between the advanced players and the players who play the game at the highest level of proficiency.

Angry birds is Checkers, Pac man is chess. (not the most absolute example, but it illustrates the skill gap that these two titles represent)

I've already broken down why Mass Effect can't keep up as far as fundamental story telling and execution in our previous discussion, so I'll leave the work to you to do your share of research just as I have for a game that I played and didn't even like. (mass effect, and yes I was open minded enough to play through them) And much of it is an example of how games today sacrifice said substance to supposedly appeal to a general crowd. These developers don't accomplish much other than creating a set of customers who only buy games to kill time then sell them rather than creating consumers that appreciate them at their fullest like people did back in the day.

These people say what they say with good reason. And it's not because of the market, its because of what developers and publishers think they see in the market. And it's true, Operation Rainfall is an example of the western market neglecting a market that's very much real.

My username Shrukin89 was born and created from the first Diablo game. But now Diablo 3 now has put my name in shame!!!!!

Originally posted by MasterGemini
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

LoL

SaturnFX you really are an invested shill

I can honestly say I am shocked at your aggressive defense of this fantasy title.

What are you, six?
Which fantasy title are you discussing exactly?

and erm..shill? what the hell are you talking about?
Are you trying to get your post count up or something?

reply to post by GambitVII


-Mass Effect-
The draw was the flaw. A relatively small development crew making ME1. It was (a few bugs..happens) overall a really great title. There was consequences of your actions, the story and universe was highly compelling, it really stood out for its time (reviews, user feedback of the time).
ME2 came out, and pretty much every decision you made from the first game reflected in the second game..this was not done before (outside of stats import). It was groundbreaking
But, it started to get complex programming. the development team didn't expand massively, it was still relatively the same amount of people, but now they had to make like 2 different games based on your decisions. Still, it was executed flawlessly, expanded the universe, feel, and depth even more
ME3. barely even a token few added...but now the plot hooks were grown exponentially. Now under the gun, a victim of their own success, they had to made almost 8 distinctly different games crunched into one.

Complexity is actually what killed off this story.

I don't believe there can be a ME4 that tags along the same story as what is given, nor do I see any potential unless they define a offical storyline (they should). Also, they should perhaps never again attempt such complexity. This both made this game absolutely brilliant, but also completely limited (without a quantum computer to start calculating all the different paths people have taken.

the last 15 minutes can be debated from now till the cows come home as to if it was brilliant, stupid, or whatever..but the experience going through the games was unlike anything I have experienced ever in gaming history.

I still am not sure what general timeframe your discussing as a sort of glory days of gaming..I played through all "eras" of gaming so far, and loved each one as it has grown.
Battlefield 1942 was an epic game. it worked fantastic, then battlefield vietnam came out, which had better physics, better gun handling, etc...still similar engine, so same lines..then they did some future thing...wasn't as good in my opinion due to my preference of historical over futuristic, etc..not that the game sucked, just my preference for FPS's in general.
MOHAA was a fantastic game also, but putting it next to todays stuff makes it look all lame and dated. Doesn't mean it was for the time..for the time it was beautiful, just as counterstrike was, or duke nukem 3d, or etc..

I guess you are talking about the feel, where I am talking about the dynamics. I however got super impressed by the sims when it came out and about the new complexity within elements and have great appreciation over that size. In games, say a FPS, I will hide and just watch NPCs ambiant behavior and find that brilliant (I remember playing the games when NPCs had no ambiant behavior...just things to shoot or talk to for shopping or quest purposes...otherwise, they were furniture.
Hell, the people sweep the floor in skyrim when they aren't doing anything, or go have dinner, or go out and make armor, or...etc. ambiant programming is awesome and relatively new.

Naa, not sure what your really complaining about...something you might want to do however, give yourself a date, say 1995..and for 3 or so years, play absolutely no games that were published after that arbitrary date...immerse yourself in the limitations and fairly mundane games of that time. After those three years, almost any game you pick up will blow your mind as to how good it is...

Some say gamers moan too much, expect too much, too spoiled..
And ya, we are..but thats a good thing. It forces the gaming industry to keep pushing the boundries of creativity and technical achievements..thereby pushing technology. But, if you can manage perspective, you can drift from spoiled, to amazed at the drop of a hat.

Meh, either way...gaming > television.
Can't wait till we are critiquing virtual reality "well ya, but when it rains, you barely feel it on your skin, and they got the texture feel of the grass wrong also!"
-dreams a bit-

That is a bummer about D3!
Doubt I will buy it now.

I'll just stick with Ultima and free shards and Skyrim.

2nd life was very cool when I played it, but that was years ago after leaving The Sims online.
I should check it out again.

Best games ever were The Zork series, Colossal Caves, FF7, FFX2.

Oh and the original Dragon's Lair.

Spent more money than I care to admit in arcades growing up. Mostly on Stargate and Mr Do

reply to post by SaturnFX


I see where your going, but much of the dynamics you speak of is all an illusion.

I'll start by illustrating what kind of gap games today have in comparison to most games in the past.
Let's take a simple comparison of depth between StarCraft 1 vs Starcraft 2.

Their predecessors are much simpler, but they accomplish more due to it's game-play mechanics. StarCraft original is still advancing it's mechanics 10 years after it's release, where players have to learn fresh strategies just to maintain themselves in the competitive dynamic environment. Where as StarCraft to progresses much more slowly, and while it seems to have much more dynamic units, it suffers from dynamic strategy because it's complexity simplified the level of depth since too many strategic and tactical variables are interchangeable. Meaning you can produce only so much definitive strategies before it refers back to rock paper scissors instead of expanding into a level of depth that would be the equivalent of speed chess at a professional level.

You say the plot of ME3 is deep and it suffers from it, I will tell you that it's too simple and it attempted to be deep.

The story is basically Shepherd saving the galaxy by influencing cultures and stopping the reapers. Simplicity is fine but it developers no level of depth. Sure the story has detail, but let's remember: How much of it is actually influential in your play through? I believe I can put it better this way: how much of it do you actually need to understand to get the grasp of the general story. The answer is: none. You don't need to know the background, because none of drives the plot. That's fine, but for a game designed to drive an epic story, it falls short of being... well... epic. Which is all masked by remarkably designed cinematic.

You can't say the same thing about Xenogears.
The game is practically about how the world began, and how your involvement will involve it's end. And understanding that doesn't even begin to skin the surface of some of the influential topics that are the foundations of that idea.

You've got things like Sigmund Freud's theories of psychology and how that affects several major plot twists and in addition to that, you have much more ridiculous concepts like trans-migration playing a major role in for the turning points in the plot and the story that revolves the past BEFORE the game, and the future of what your of what your going to accomplish. I'd be going TOO deep if I were to talk about those.

I'd HATE to spoil any of it, because it's one of the most immaculate plots to ever have existed in any form of media from games, to shows, to even movies and books.


There's tons of spoilers in the following article, but it's an excellent illustration of just ONE theme can influence your interpretation of the plot.
www.rpgamer.com...

Zohar is a reference to a manuscript that served as an interpretation of the Torah (the Jewish Bible). A Rabbi named Moses De Leon wrote the real Zohar in the thirteenth century. One of the major themes of the real Zohar was how there are varying degrees of meaning in religious scripture. It compared the Torah to a person saying that fools look only at the body of the Torah, while true sages look into the spirit of the Torah, and that in the end, the wisest people would look at the "soul of the soul" of the Torah. In other words, some people take religious scripture completely literally while more enlightened people look for deeper meaning that what is immediately obvious. When one looks at the world of Xenogears in terms of Zohar, many themes become much more clear. In the game, both the Existence Wave and Deus were imprisoned by the Zohar-actually, the fact that they are both caught up in the Zohar is very symbolically significant. This duality is one of the major themes in the game. It is clear that Deus represents the literal "body" of religion while the existence wave is symbolic of the "soul" of religion as mentioned in the Zohar.

Mass Effect doesn't suffer from deepness, because the last time I checked, none of that detail was actively participating in my journey. Any developer could of created detail above and beyond the presented plot but not every developer can convey them all so smoothly and in a way that drives the plot. Xenogears is one of those titles that does it well, and its only ONE GAME. 999 and Planescape Torment are other examples and like I said, do your reasearch and you'll see what I'm talking about.


Xenogears is not a game where it's depth is simply used for theatrics. It literally designed to opens it's viewers perspective. That's what depth should do. And games today just throw detail into the plot, NOT depth.

I was going to buy it and then i realise how bad it look like and changed my mind

Starcraft 2 from Blizzard .. that game worth your money

reply to post by Frater210

OP... I'm sad to find this. I found myself cash challenged this month and so, to great disappointment in the Rabbit household, Diablo III could't be purchased for my wife and I to partake in the joys of Dungeon clearing as a family. I'd seen the reviews on Day 1 and 2 but heck... Some of the games I consider among the best today, started as half baked boondoggles that left people wondering what part of Beta vs. Gold the developers didn't understand?


Now I came here to post a question about how good it is and whether I should consider some extreme measures (like selling a couple things on Ebay) to fund some family fun chasing down demons in dungeons.

Online REQUIRED to play? CASH BASED marketing????? Oh brother... It sounds like I would have just felt outright ripped off for well over $100 between the two copies and I believe my wife would call me wimpy for ONLY saying that much. She's won't take the news well either.

This reminds me of another sequel to a WONDERFUL game that the community waited eons to get their hands on. It was a favorite. I beloved game and a time sink back when I was a wee gamer and just starting to really get into my own as a shooter and looter off the lessons of Half Life (original). It's Tribes I speak of, of course. Tribes II to be real specific. Talk about a sequel that killed a series outright.

I hope Diablo III has some of these absolute deal breakers corrected because I won't just avoid buying this game. This mentality out of Blizzard (not their FIRST foray into treating us like babies with dollars they need to take) has become a bit of a pattern and ...sadly... this ends any buying of Blizzard products until they've been out for a lengthy period to be embraced or outright trashed by the community.

Remember when release day was party day on a great game? Geeze.... Now it's getting to be 'Lets hear how bad they screwed it this time' day.

Virtual Steroids | Diablo 3 Maphack, Farming & Leveling Hack for D3

or if you prefer just the maphack.

Virtual Steroids | Diablo 3 Maphack for D3

both come with lifetime licenses, so really cheap considering how awesome these are.

the bot can run while minimized! also you can run multiple instances from the same PC.

i'm currently farming an average of 100k gold per hour, on a level 55 barb.

ta hell with blizzard

I awaits torchlight 2.