Someone I know complains all the fucking time about the game, about everything in it and around it. It's not like you married the wrong chick and now you're stuck with her forever, because a divorce would cost a fortune. In fact, the game is uninstalled within minutes and clicking only a few buttons :-)
Issues with diablo 3... - Page 8
Forum Index > Diablo 3 |
Kuni
Austria765 Posts
Someone I know complains all the fucking time about the game, about everything in it and around it. It's not like you married the wrong chick and now you're stuck with her forever, because a divorce would cost a fortune. In fact, the game is uninstalled within minutes and clicking only a few buttons :-) | ||
EienShinwa
United States655 Posts
| ||
PH
United States6173 Posts
That's what turned me off. | ||
Dmn
Norway101 Posts
And with the success and longevity of D2, and D3 being it's sequel, I don't think it's too unreasonable to expect a similar gaming experience. Which unfortunately, turned out not to be the case. | ||
Mr.Bimbles
Iceland457 Posts
On July 13 2012 08:45 PH wrote: The number one problem, in my opinion, is the difficulty curve, which has been talked about before. If you're undergeared, then you get roflstomped. If you're geared, then you roflstomp. There's no in between, and there's no real fun-'cause-it's-a-challenge way to make up for lacking gear. That's what turned me off. Also the way you get items... Mastercard etc... | ||
strongwind
United States862 Posts
On July 12 2012 11:54 WolfintheSheep wrote: I beat the game today. I was undergeared for it, but I beat the game. And that basically summarizes my attitude towards D3. I would never say I beat Diablo 2, or Guild Wars, or Titan Quest (all of which I've played recently in the last 2 years). But everything in Diablo 3 basically told me that Inferno was all that mattered, and the gear I was getting was solely for the purpose of beating Diablo 3. And then it told me that it would be faster to zerg my way through Act 3 and Act 4 than it would be to actually get the gear necessary to do it "properly". And now that I've beaten Inferno...there's really nothing else I feel like doing in the game. And the worst part is, it doesn't feel like an accomplishment. Killing Diablo in Inferno was basically my way of closing the book, putting it down and choosing never to touch it again. So yeah, that's it then. I beat the game. People need to understand that $60 is a lot for a PC game nowadays, considering Steam is giving 75% sales on a regular basis. There are very, very few games that I would ever buy on release day, and Blizzard used to be a company that would warrant immediate purchase. This isn't just some company putting out a mediocre game. This is a company losing the years and years of trust and good faith that it earned from its customers. Diablo 3 pre-sold record numbers of copies because everyone "knew" it would be an all-time classic. And they were wrong. Diablo 3 will eventually smooth itself out and become a decent game for a $30 purchase in several months. But Blizzard basically lost its reputation as one of the few companies that wouldn't release a game until it was awesome and it was ready. And that reputation was worth record pre-sales. Agree with this completely. A lot of you guys are getting caught up with the 500 hour thing. The problem is that you're comparing a Blizzard game to every other game out there right now. That's not what made Blizzard famous. For past Blizzard games, 500 hours was a drop in the bucket. Yes, expectations were extremely high, maybe unrealistically so, but that's what we've come to expect from this company. It's why I've personally held them in higher regard than almost any other gaming company. I think what this means for me is that future Blizz games will not be an insta-buy anymore. I'll have to do what everyone does with other game purchases: determine if it's worth the bang for my buck. Sadness. | ||
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
One particular thing just made me completely put this game in the bin. "Websites that sell gold." I had no idea these exist and god is it easy to buy it. As a casual Diablo 3 player, who would like to progressively get nice items in the game (only Act 3 Hell at the moment), I just realised that the combination of the auction house and those websites completely shit on my meager attempts to get anything decent in this game. Why the fuck would I want to grind hours to get a good item when I can just buy 10 million for £10 and buy items that I would need dozens of hours to find and buy. And dont tell me that you would rather grind those 50+ hours in inferno to get that kind of items/ gold than pay £10 lol. Game over for me. | ||
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On July 13 2012 09:29 Psychobabas wrote: I read the whole thing. One particular thing just made me completely put this game in the bin. "Websites that sell gold." I had no idea these exist and god is it easy to buy it. As a casual Diablo 3 player, who would like to progressively get nice items in the game (only Act 3 Hell at the moment), I just realised that the combination of the auction house and those websites completely shit on my meager attempts to get anything decent in this game. Why the fuck would I want to grind hours to get a good item when I can just buy 10 million for £10 and buy items that I would need dozens of hours to find and buy. And dont tell me that you would rather grind those 50+ hours in inferno to get that kind of items/ gold than pay £10 lol. Game over for me. I hope you realize that this sort of thing exists for every online rpg ever. | ||
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
On July 13 2012 09:37 Dfgj wrote: I hope you realize that this sort of thing exists for every online rpg ever. Kind of. I have never played any online rpg in my life I only played diablo 2 with friends through hamachi | ||
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On July 13 2012 09:56 Psychobabas wrote: Kind of. I have never played any online rpg in my life I only played diablo 2 with friends through hamachi Fair enough. Take heed and be warned, then! | ||
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
Staboteur
Canada1873 Posts
On July 13 2012 09:09 strongwind wrote: Agree with this completely. A lot of you guys are getting caught up with the 500 hour thing. The problem is that you're comparing a Blizzard game to every other game out there right now. That's not what made Blizzard famous. For past Blizzard games, 500 hours was a drop in the bucket. Yes, expectations were extremely high, maybe unrealistically so, but that's what we've come to expect from this company. It's why I've personally held them in higher regard than almost any other gaming company. I think what this means for me is that future Blizz games will not be an insta-buy anymore. I'll have to do what everyone does with other game purchases: determine if it's worth the bang for my buck. Sadness. Three feelings come to mind as I read this: $60 is not a lot for a PC game nowadays, at least not one with a single-player length of over 50 hours AS WELL AS functional online play that allows for theoretically infinite playtime, even if not through the strength of the game itself as much as doing shit with friends. As evidence that $60 is not a lot for a game, consider the amount of people that were willing to pay for all the expansions of WoW as well as the monthly fee... or consider how many people were willing to not only spend $60 for Diablo 3, but then also $60 for a single piece of gear in D3 (Personally, I sold things to three of them and had only put 150 hours into the game...) or consider how a lot of these $60 games will still sell more copies than their cheaper counterparts, implying that the masses believe they're worth their cost. Until we as a gaming community don't believe games are worth $60, they'll be worth $60... and honestly, it seems like dev times for games just keep going up and up, so I can't see this trend changing all that soon. You did not play any non-bnet blizzard game for more than 500 hours. I'll still consider Diablo 1 faaar superior to Diablo 2 in terms of game design and flow (though the change in pacing in games makes it feel terribly slow these days) but what carried Diablo 2 was not solely its strength in design so much as its multiplayer/online accessibility at the beginning of an era that was starting to discover the strength of multiplayer games. It was a -good- game made great by the community that embraced it, not a great game from the get-go. To say that for past blizzard games 500 hours was a drop in the bucket makes me feel like you're only including Diablo 2 (as a D2 fanboy) and Starcraft in the list of games blizzard made AND are considering a "drop in the bucket" to constitute 75% at the very least of the time spent playing the game. Thirdly, name a game that succeeded where D3 has failed. There's a lot of hype coming out for Torchlight 2, and I'd love to see them carry the torch (sorry :D) of ARPGs to a place it hasn't been before (that embraces today's standards of online multiplay rather than relying on a strength it doesn't have)... and while I agree that it is somewhat saddening to see blizzard fail to carry on their trend of genre innovation I don't think it's fair to condemn them for also failing where no-one else has succeeded. I agree that D3 was nowhere near the innovative recreation of ARPGs that I was expecting from a Blizzard product. However, I can't relate to considering it a failure big enough to reduce my belief that they're still capable of pushing certain genres beyond their bounds. | ||
WeeKeong
United States282 Posts
On July 12 2012 14:29 psychopat wrote: Not if you actually played the game... 58 is the highest I wound up on any character because that's all that was needed to kill literally every monster in every single area of the game on your way through it. 58 is actually the one I did in single player, on /players 8. Anything more is people doing repetitive runs, using trainers or getting rushed by friends... I preferred to actually play the game instead of looking for ways to get around it. I played alot of single player D2 single run (only beat each area once) untwinked /players 8. I ALWAYS started hell at level 75-82 or so. 58 means that you stopped at NM acts 2-4 depending on how much you skipped or dropped to /players 1. | ||
Trevoc
United States145 Posts
| ||
Hubble
Germany248 Posts
On July 25 2012 02:01 WeeKeong wrote: I played alot of single player D2 single run (only beat each area once) untwinked /players 8. I ALWAYS started hell at level 75-82 or so. 58 means that you stopped at NM acts 2-4 depending on how much you skipped or dropped to /players 1. I always finished Hell at around Level 60-70, too... and I didn't skip whole acts of the game ("skipping" act 3 was common, I believe?). My highest Char ever was 86, and I did a TON of bossruns/act 5 runs with that hero. I was never even close to this level when I started hell. So yeah, I must second what he says. But I stopped playing at Patch 1.10 (because none of my builds worked anymore. Yeah it sucked). So there may be faster leveling in the current version of the game. /e: I played also with /players 8 | ||
Mystgun
Hong Kong311 Posts
^post basically does this to the D3 team | ||
Azzur
Australia6202 Posts
| ||
noD
2230 Posts
| ||
Roachu
Sweden692 Posts
| ||
OpticalShot
Canada6330 Posts
I stopped playing a while ago and I'm not sure if I'll come back. At this point I think I'm unhappier with Blizzard as a company than the individual titles they release. | ||
| ||