Diablo III Has Single Player Online

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

These all sound like reasons why I should not ever play this game, even if it was any good. Thank you, politics!

sneakypenguin:
I actually don't mind because i'm an exclusively online player, ever since i've ventured into the world of MP years ago playing an offline game has always been a meh experience. Diablo imo is a one time purchase multi player online rpg, and the thing is there are millions of us out there who will play it like that and welcome it. Gaming is a social mainstream endeavor now and focusing on that crowd with the best experience possible is just the way things go; even if it means the exclusion of others.

There is nothing wrong at all with what you are saying. As a matter of fact, it's one of the more level headed arguments in this situation. There are millions of people just like me, who like a single player game with optional multiplayer. I don't have a problem with my internet connection or any such thing. I my ping tends to be in the 80 range. But, I don't care for having a compulsory online component. I love online games. I like WoW, I still play Rift, I love Battlefield 3. But they aren't offering me a single player experience while simultaneously demanding that I be online. My point is, there is no reason to exclude anyone at all. If they did it like Diablo 2, you would simply only make an online character and not bother with an offline character. I would probably make an offline character, then if I had a friend who was playing the game, make an online character at the same time as them.

OT: The whole problem with this misguided approach they have taken is they have divided their audience. They didn't make a game that appeals to everyone who likes Diablo. They didn't make a game that appeals to gamers in general I think. I know people who don't like to be always online, so they won't like this. I know people who don't want to support companies that do this kind of thing, so they won't buy it. Then, there are plenty of people who will love this game and have no problem. But, there could be more people... which is where their business model breaks down. Excluding people to "prevent piracy" or "protect your IP" or "Stop a single complaint from people who played Diablo 2" (that last one is the worst excuse I have ever heard, by the way) is just poor business. This will only increase the likelihood of people pirating it or not buying it. Some people have also been ballsy enough to say they are outright going to pirate it, which is brave. Also, you will probably get warned/banned for that.... so not a very smart move.

I came to this article open minded hoping to possibly change my opinion on Diablo 3. Now it cemented in stone that I will never buy this game.

Theres many issues with this, but the one i'm going to bring up, is this:
Royalties (and other profits obviously)
Now, blizzard lost alot of money through starcraft because of the LAN function, due to the ToS etc etc it wasn't really all that necessary for tournaments to comply with any rules blizzard may state because the hardware its using is all your own. So alot of the korean tournaments didn't really generate a great deal, if any profit for blizzard despite that being the games only replay value in this day and age.
Next, comes Dota. Fantastic. The only real reason that kept me playing WC3 for as long as i did. I liked the campaigns sure, but did they and the skirmishes have unlimited replay value? no. It got old after the first play through real quick. So dota, and the endless other "melee" maps that came out kept me entertained until the expansion, and the next series of campaigns came out.

Dota, is now a game, infact its 3 games. By different companies.
The man who took up the reins, icefrog coupled with this own team made LoL or Dota 2, whichever one, and 2 groups of fans made up heroes of newerth and whichever one of the titles icefrog & co didnt make.
Now thats a lot of profit to be missing out on, considering the original creation was played on their servers, by their player base that they massed.
In this day and age of patent disputes and endless copyright agreements, blizzard seems to have taken the view of any security conscious administrator. Its locked down, until they say otherwise. DRM is probably just the beginning.

Wow, people here are actually defending things that screw us over. Good job escapist. Good job.

The interesting thing is that this probably isn't even to defeat piracy. It's because Blizzard wants to create an economy whose sole purpose is to generate Blizzard money, and allowing the player any form of control will destroy that.

So yeah. Sucks.

It's not even like everyone (say students) always have access to fast reliable internet

So how do companies like Blizzard consider their games to be creative and representative of a artistic medium, deal with the eventuality that because of server costs and money decline, that they will have to shut off access to the game at one point.

In ten years time people might not be able to look at these games and what they are at all. What happens then?
What's the point of creating something for people to enjoy, if you deliberately shut large amounts of people out?

Its just so damn sad. People are actually giving companies the ability to do this and literally letting them bend them over the barrel and thrust.

I mean christ you have people defending Project Ten dollar for petes sake. I don't understand how captialist and corporate values that actively screw over the public are actually being defended by anyone at all who always feel the effects of them.
Do you all want them to make enjoying anything as intrusive and irritating as possible? Do you enjoy being exploited as if you were some kind of cow , never given anything of value but milked for all your worth before being left to rot?

BrotherRool:
The interesting thing is that this probably isn't even to defeat piracy. It's because Blizzard wants to create an economy whose sole purpose is to generate Blizzard money, and allowing the player any form of control will destroy that.

So yeah. Sucks.

It's not even like everyone (say students) always have access to fast reliable internet

yep. they want absolute control over their "intellectual property" in order to milk the existing fanbase (which is huge) for more money. and because bnet 2.0 is the only game in town, they won't do more than is necessary to provide a halfway playable service. the customer aka fucktard licensee can either bend over or forget about their starcraft/diablo fix.

The whole "no pause" thing baffles me. If it's a single player session, why the hell wouldn't they have a pause function? Obviously a multi-player session wouldn't, but single player? Seriously, who put the stupid juice in the devs coffee?

And I really, really don't like the whole name/password thing. I know it seems small and petty, but last time I checked, I'm giving them money, not the other way around. That means I shouldn't have to be hassled to save them hassle, it works the other way around in the consumer-provider interaction.

When did Blizzard get so moronic? Was it before or after Activsion bought them?

That PC Guy:

BrotherRool:
The interesting thing is that this probably isn't even to defeat piracy. It's because Blizzard wants to create an economy whose sole purpose is to generate Blizzard money, and allowing the player any form of control will destroy that.

So yeah. Sucks.

It's not even like everyone (say students) always have access to fast reliable internet

yep. they want absolute control over their "intellectual property" in order to milk the existing fanbase (which is huge) for more money. and because bnet 2.0 is the only game in town, they won't do more than is necessary to provide a halfway playable service. the customer aka fucktard licensee can either bend over or forget about their starcraft/diablo fix.

Pssh, existing fanbase? This game is going to grow, I bet they're aiming this as a cross between Team Fortress 2 and WoW as far as money generation goes. And giving the player any form of control damages the pressure auction house economy that's going to do it for them. People will complain but it's not going to stop many from buying the game. Blizzard know what they're doing :(

Royas:
The whole "no pause" thing baffles me. If it's a single player session, why the hell wouldn't they have a pause function? Obviously a multi-player session wouldn't, but single player? Seriously, who put the stupid juice in the devs coffee?

And I really, really don't like the whole name/password thing. I know it seems small and petty, but last time I checked, I'm giving them money, not the other way around. That means I shouldn't have to be hassled to save them hassle, it works the other way around in the consumer-provider interaction.

When did Blizzard get so moronic? Was it before or after Activsion bought them?

After. It's still a question of whether or not they would've become this blatantly greedy and ham-fisted a developer all by themselves. It's not too much of a stretch to think that, thanks to the immense success of WoW, they've become too big for their own (or, rather, the customers') good, with little to no influence from Activision.

Here are some ideas how Blizzard could fix some problems:

Singleplayer/Multiplayer characers -> Players could play it offline, but the singleplayer characters would be at the same time multiplayer characters.

Constant Online -> Remove it and replace it with some sort of online pass, where players would have to log in to battle.net and insert a code before they could install/play the game(although it wouldn't help those without internet).

Auction House -> No real money, use only ingame gold(it then would have some other use than resurrecting your stupid hireling).

No Mods -> Create separete Mod-section.

No Pausing -> Would work only if you were playing singleplayer(just like in Diablo II).

Did I forget something?

The more and more I hear about Diablo 3, the more and more I want Torchlight 2.

Seriously. They arent even TRYING anymore with this game. Are they making a shitty game because they know it will sell anyway? OR DO THEY LEGITIMATELY THINK ITS A GOOD IDEA? I honestly would love to sit down with Blizzard and say "Seriously?. You're better than that." Im glad they released the beta, and I hope they fix the game based on beta output.

Always online, while I dont have a problem with it, makes no sence for Diablo 3. Its based on Single Player. Being able to buy power from other players with real life gold? That ruined the Arenas for me. Little things matter - the lack of a pause button is just compliling into a ball of shit. I dont care about the story anymore, Ill wiki/YouTube it. Doesnt seem like it will be worth it

mjc0961:

Dorkmaster Flek:
No pausing? In a single player game? Are you fucking kidding me?! I can't believe a company like Blizzard was the first one to make such a horrendous dick move.

You clearly never played Demon's Souls.

Patapon 1 and 2 were some of the worst offenders for the lack of a pause button. A game based around a rhythm mechanic that requires precise button timing on a handheld system meant to be played on the go.

The third one has a button combo that will pause the game but you have to unlock it first...

OT: I'm still undecided about Diablo III. Like Starcraft 2 I'll only play single player so I think I'll wait 6 months after the game comes out to see if Blizzard releases patches to accommodate people playing solo(like an actual solo mode that has a pause function. If only one person is in a "solo locked" world, a pause function won't come into conflict with anyone else).

Sir Broccoli:
I don't really see why the 'no pausing' thing is such a huge deal. Just create a town portal and you'll have all the time in the world.
Unless Diablo 3 has no town portals, in which case you can ignore this post.

I remember they said they were taking town portals out to keep players in the action or some shit like that.

you should rename this from "experienced points" to "stating the obvious... again".

I think I may actually have to say thank you, Blizzard. These days, with all the excellent games coming out and my time dwindling with extra responsibilities, it gets hard to choose which to buy and finish. And Diablo 3, with it's forceful approach to how games should be in our near future, well you can fuck right off.

Royas:
The whole "no pause" thing baffles me. If it's a single player session, why the hell wouldn't they have a pause function? Obviously a multi-player session wouldn't, but single player? Seriously, who put the stupid juice in the devs coffee?

And I really, really don't like the whole name/password thing. I know it seems small and petty, but last time I checked, I'm giving them money, not the other way around. That means I shouldn't have to be hassled to save them hassle, it works the other way around in the consumer-provider interaction.

When did Blizzard get so moronic? Was it before or after Activsion bought them?

The security thing exists because it is quite common for people to lose their accounts, and Blizzard decided the best way to protect the user from themselves was an authenticator.

Suomimaster:
Here are some ideas how Blizzard could fix some problems:

Singleplayer/Multiplayer characers -> Players could play it offline, but the singleplayer characters would be at the same time multiplayer characters.

The moment you let offline characters get on Battle.net is the moment you let pretty much hacked characters enter Battle.net. Altering save files is an extremely easy (in relation to online) and a fairly accessible practice, once someone creates an interface for the hack.

Offline (along with LAN, or TCP/IP connection), if it were to exist, should remain entirely separate from Battle.net. That and simply creating a hint saying 'YOU CAN NOT USE YOUR OffLINE CHARACTERS ON BATTLE.NET', maybe in the form of a question, are not mutually exclusive, however.

They're worried about people "cheating", except it's a single player game so there's no one to "cheat". They also have an auction house you can spend real money in, which they claim they won't post items in. But the person who posted the auction is anonymous.

2+2=

poiumty:

Realitycrash:

So, is Diablo III restricted to five worlds as well? Five tiny, fucking levels that feature little to no variety? Or is it more "open world" (dare I say "Sandbox"?) that encourages exploring?

You mean five level themes with dozens of large, open, procedurally-generated levels that can bring almost infinite variety?

Calling Diablo 2 a "short game" given the number of choices, the replayability, the nightmare and hell modes and so on and so forth is seriously narrow-minded.

If you by "infinte variety" mean "Oooh, sometimes the right Temple/Cave/Oasis/Whatever is TO THE RIGHT this time, instead of DOWN AND TO THE LEFT. Gee, this is a completely new experience for me!".

And so what if it is replayable? I never questioned this. I just don't want to replay the same (very short) levels all over again.

Hammeroj:

Realitycrash:
All I want to know about Diablo III is this; Is it horribly short, as Diablo 2?
I don't buy games to play online (WoW not included, but I'v given that up as well), I prefer singleplayer, and when I ran through Diablo 2 (plus the expansion) in around 16 hours, I got pretty pissed.
So, is Diablo III restricted to five worlds as well? Five tiny, fucking levels that feature little to no variety? Or is it more "open world" (dare I say "Sandbox"?) that encourages exploring?

It's going to be essentially the same. At the very least in the departments of linearity and size of the game world.

Thanks, I know not to buy it then.

Realitycrash:

poiumty:

Realitycrash:

So, is Diablo III restricted to five worlds as well? Five tiny, fucking levels that feature little to no variety? Or is it more "open world" (dare I say "Sandbox"?) that encourages exploring?

You mean five level themes with dozens of large, open, procedurally-generated levels that can bring almost infinite variety?

Calling Diablo 2 a "short game" given the number of choices, the replayability, the nightmare and hell modes and so on and so forth is seriously narrow-minded.

If you by "infinte variety" mean "Oooh, sometimes the right Temple/Cave/Oasis/Whatever is TO THE RIGHT this time, instead of DOWN AND TO THE LEFT. Gee, this is a completely new experience for me!".

Last time I checked, that's part of the definition of variety, and yes, it does allow for almost infinite permutations. Meanwhile, sandbox games will be exactly the same each time you play them.

The game is DESIGNED to be played through multiple times. You know, like some games are. Devil May Cry and Dead Rising 2, for instance. And the levels themselves actually get much longer on higher difficulties. If you wanna complain about how you personally don't like it go ahead, but don't act like it's objectively bad or I'm going to yell at you over the internet again.

poiumty:

Realitycrash:

poiumty:
You mean five level themes with dozens of large, open, procedurally-generated levels that can bring almost infinite variety?

Calling Diablo 2 a "short game" given the number of choices, the replayability, the nightmare and hell modes and so on and so forth is seriously narrow-minded.

If you by "infinte variety" mean "Oooh, sometimes the right Temple/Cave/Oasis/Whatever is TO THE RIGHT this time, instead of DOWN AND TO THE LEFT. Gee, this is a completely new experience for me!".

Last time I checked, that's part of the definition of variety, and yes, it does allow for almost infinite permutations. Meanwhile, sandbox games will be exactly the same each time you play them.

The game is DESIGNED to be played through multiple times. You know, like some games are. Devil May Cry and Dead Rising 2, for instance. And the levels themselves actually get much longer on higher difficulties. If you wanna complain about how you personally don't like it go ahead, but don't act like it's objectively bad or I'm going to yell at you over the internet again.

It might allow for "infinite permutations", but doesn't give me any NEW INFO. Instead of the road going left, it now goes right, but both takes me to the Temple of Doom, and both roads had the same amount of enemies and the same environment. It's like 7+5=12, and 8+4=12. It's the same goddamn result and it doesn't impress me. If levels actually get longer in the higher difficulty-levels, then the game gets longer, sure, but it really wouldn't impress me much. More of the same, more of the same.
Even though you can beat every game in only a few hours (or minutes), if you set yourself out to do it, some still take longer, and Diablo II isn't long from that point of view. What do I consider a long game? Dragon Age: Origins is long, it has plenty of sidequests, dialogue and the mainplot is massive in its own. Morrowind was fucking huge, especially with the expansions.
And you say that its ment to be played "over and over again"? Fine. I guess you were one of the guys that grinded it online for years (much like I have done with World of Warcraft), but I play Diablo for single-player action, and where is the point of me to grind it then?
I feel none. Higher difficulty does not equal incentive to continue grinding.

"Objectively a bad thing"? Have you any idea what "objective" means?
Sigh. No one can ever have an OBJECTIVE opinion, then it wouldn't be an opinion.

I played WoW a long time, none of these issues affect me in the slightest.

Will buy on midnight launch.

XinfiniteX:
Waah Waah. People just need something to QQ about. I have to go on this internet thing to play my game? But I'm scared and overwhelmed! Get with the times grandpa! If you don't like it go make a better game.

Out the door with you and your trolling. Now.

ionveau:
World of Warcraft "pirate" servers? They are called emulation servers and they do not break any international copy write laws

Wrong on both sides. Hosting private servers is violating WoW's TOS and a bannable offense. Copyright has nothing to do with it.

OT: Isn't it wonderful how gaming has evolved since the 80's but now in the 2010's it's DEVOLVING. It's time to wake up and stop praising the melee of mediocrity and demand developers actually put some fucking effort into their games and stop defrauding us. Yes I'm looking at you, EA.

Captcha: annointed ceesra

So... it's going to be a Torchlight with lag? Uhm... Why do I have the feeling I'd prefer Torchlight 2?

We all understand that they're trying to shove pirates off, but for how long are they planning to do that at the expense of their customers? Someone got to stop all this DRM/Online Activation(now online single player?) crap soon, before it went too far.

Looks like I'm STILL going to be playing the first two.

Realitycrash:

It might allow for "infinite permutations", but doesn't give me any NEW INFO. Instead of the road going left, it now goes right, but both takes me to the Temple of Doom, and both roads had the same amount of enemies and the same environment. It's like 7+5=12, and 8+4=12. It's the same goddamn result and it doesn't impress me. If levels actually get longer in the higher difficulty-levels, then the game gets longer, sure, but it really wouldn't impress me much. More of the same, more of the same.

And of course, random dungeon #232 in whatever sandbox game you like (that encourages exploring) is completely different from this because it has two levers to pull instead of one.
I mean, I have no problems if this is what gets you to enjoy the game. But you have to consider the hilarity of that statement.

Even though you can beat every game in only a few hours (or minutes), if you set yourself out to do it, some still take longer, and Diablo II isn't long from that point of view.

So your argument is "if I completely ignore the point of this game and go straight for the finish line, the game is too short for me". Well, yes, it's that type of game.

"Objectively a bad thing"? Have you any idea what "objective" means?
Sigh. No one can ever have an OBJECTIVE opinion, then it wouldn't be an opinion.

Of course I have an idea what "objective" means. It comes with general statements about a game that can be right or wrong. Such as the ones you implied: lack of variety, not encouraging exploration.
Now I'm not the one to keep arguing what your words sounded like instead of what you meant, but if you really meant it as personal opinion you should have said so.

poiumty:

Realitycrash:

It might allow for "infinite permutations", but doesn't give me any NEW INFO. Instead of the road going left, it now goes right, but both takes me to the Temple of Doom, and both roads had the same amount of enemies and the same environment. It's like 7+5=12, and 8+4=12. It's the same goddamn result and it doesn't impress me. If levels actually get longer in the higher difficulty-levels, then the game gets longer, sure, but it really wouldn't impress me much. More of the same, more of the same.

And of course, random dungeon #232 in whatever sandbox game you like (that encourages exploring) is completely different from this because it has two levers to pull instead of one.
I mean, I have no problems if this is what gets you to enjoy the game. But you have to consider the hilarity of that statement.

Even though you can beat every game in only a few hours (or minutes), if you set yourself out to do it, some still take longer, and Diablo II isn't long from that point of view.

So your argument is "if I completely ignore the point of this game and go straight for the finish line, the game is too short for me". Well, yes, it's that type of game.

"Objectively a bad thing"? Have you any idea what "objective" means?
Sigh. No one can ever have an OBJECTIVE opinion, then it wouldn't be an opinion.

Of course I have an idea what "objective" means. It comes with general statements about a game that can be right or wrong. Such as the ones you implied: lack of variety, not encouraging exploration.
Now I'm not the one to keep arguing what your words sounded like instead of what you meant, but if you really meant it as personal opinion you should have said so.

I'm about go out and get drunk, so I don't have time for a "proper" reply, all I can say is: Too few sidequests, not enough dialogue, not enough varied environments. Had they made about twice the content (twice the amount of "levels" you can go to) I probably wouldn't be complaining.
For me, the game is short. But I'm sure it's excellent to grind online.
Glad you enjoy it, I sure did not.

I bought a PC to turn my back on consoles and their shitty narrow-minded shoot-first-ask-questions-later DRM policies.

Battlenet for this, Origin for that; makes me think of Steam almost a positively positive light... when they let me log into 'my own' games that is. My entire library is online only *sadface* (if only steam had an proper offline mode instead of a sick joke using those words as its name)

am I alone or do the words USER-NAME and PASS-WORD often look like GIVE-UP and GO-AWAY?

All those people who were looking forward to WabloIII that are now crying into their preview articles and keyboards, I can think of maybe one positive thing to say; AT LEAST THERE WON'T BE FEELINGS GUILT AND HEARTACHE ABOUT PIRATING IT SEEING AS HOW IT'S NOT EVEN WORTH IT.

BLIZZARD - Y U NO RESPECT ANYTHING?

Whenever my government approves the construction of a private toll road the surrounding transport infrastructure will often be strategically altered from its original layout into a different layout. The purpose of the change will enviably be so that more traffic is channelled or encouraged to patron the new toll road and they do this at the expense of reduced functionality for non-users. It is complete utter bullshit and while I certainly won't be buying it, there is a strange sort of inevitability of the game's success and the continued erosion of player privileges. Post release I can see a lot of players shrugging their shoulders at what the big deal was when they stop playing Diablo 3 and trade in their gear at the online store for a small discount on another Blizzard game.

But as Lando Calrissian said, "This deal is getting worse all the time."

Shamus Young:
You Can't Pause the Game

What about town portals? Are they taken out? Always thought they were the "pause" mechanics in the diablo games.

Then again, if "game got no pause button", "you cant mod it" (I could never mod any of my console games and they were still pretty good) and "you have to sign in to play it" are some of the major reasons NOT to buy this game, I guess it must be pretty awesome :D

SonofSeth:
I played WoW a long time, none of these issues affect me in the slightest.

Will buy on midnight launch.

Exactly what I was thinking. Apparently were missing out on something, cause we should be furious about this.

EDIT: Ops, seems Ive entered territory where my positive opinions towards D3 probably will create some hostility... *town portal*

Dear me, point-and-click adventures are quite the rage these days!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here