Diablo III Game Director Steps Down

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Zenn3k:

chiefohara:
wow...

Played Diablo 1 and 2 enjoyed both.

Bought Diablo 3 a week ago ... and im really enjoying it!

I understand the rage at always having to be online, and auction house stuff (haven't bothered with that part yet) but all these claims saying the game is terrible is pretty surprising. I don't agree with a lot of the policy stuff either, but otherwise.... hell this is coming across as a really polished and fun game to me.

As for Jay Wilson... best of luck wherever you go.

P.S.

Also loved starcraft 2, but that seems to be a no no as well these days.

Yes, the game is great on the surface, at first glance. Have you gotten to the point of the game where all that matters is stacking like 5 stats and only 5 stats...on every single class? No? Well talk come back when you have. Its the itemization that kills Diablo 3. Its the most important part of the game, and its dreadful. Primary, Vit, Crit, Crit%, and Resists All. Attack speed used to matter, then they nerfed it, now its useless. Farming for 2 days in Inferno for +2 Dex, +50 Vit, and +25 Resist All on 1 slot, when 99.99999% of the drops you find will be completely useless...basically forcing you into auction house, now you're farming for gold. Farming for days...for gold...to buy from the auction house....

wOOOoooooo

Plus the first time through, the bosses drop extra rares...on your next THREE playthroughs of the game, their drops are all trash. So that blinds the newbies a bit too, boss farming sucks. In fact you can't really farm effectively at all until Inferno, which is why you are basically forced there very quickly after 1st enchanted foray into Diablo, lord of the bitches.

Its trash, don't look silly defending it.

Glad to know what I missed out on. Admittedly did buy Diablo 3. Beat normal in a few days, realized what the system looked like and how the AH was a damn near necessity. Dropped it, never looked back.

Disney might buy Blizzard they'll fix all the problems... maybe unless the idea of largest media super corp in the world scares you at all...

Well I've gotta hand it to the man. He sure knows when to abandon a sinking Ship. Wonder what he's planning next??

Fuck that loser.

I was going to write just that and accept my warning for low content post , but then i realised , he isn't even worth getting a warning over .

Seriously, this guy needs to disappear from the gaming comunity , play some good games , see why this game sucked and reflect on his past sins . Then and only then , when he reaches enlightenment , will he be welcomed back into our holy circle . Amen .

Draech:

If you dont think answering your own question and then making a person comment on that answer, then you dont know what a leading question is.

IncGamers: Do you think they bought the wrong people in? As we understand, Jay Wilson, for example, his background was RTS. From our point of view it looked like they misunderstood what kept people playing, The type of loot drops, which has been a big issues. One of the other issues is they have not listened to their community, and they have not analysed what makes up that addictive Diablo experience. What are your thoughts on that?

This right here is not an opinion question. This is a factual dictionary definition.

A question that suggests the particular answer or contains the information the examiner is looking to have confirmed.

No opinion needed.

That isn't a leading question, for it to be a leading question the interviewer would have to lead him toward a specific answer, which he didn't, Brewik could (and did) answer with whatever he wanted, they never asked Brewik to confirm their thoughts, they asked him to give his opinion on a statement.

I don't think I got much left to say at this point...

Except, fuck that loser. Hope his new job involves cleaning toilets in some way.

Zenn3k:
Don't let the door hit you on the way out Jay.

Thanks for ruining one of my favorite game franchises btw, as well as completely turning me off of any future Blizzard products (partly out of fear you might now be involved with one of them).

Well said. Sums up my thoughts too.

He certainly made many mistakes, too much trouble to fix. I don't know how they could make so many terrible decisions.

I know I had a policy of not responding to you, but your flailing defense of Blizzard sometimes gets amusing to the point that I do want to reply.

Draech:
He quite literally answers his own question and makes Brewik comment on that answer.

Read the question again, and read what he said after the question. He's asking why the game turned out to be so polarizing, and providing a little background. He is certainly not answering his own question, not unless you have difficulties reading. The question is still there, and while the fact that he points out Jay Wilson having been an RTS designer prior to this does nudge him towards the answer, it's a bloody fact, and one that I don't think must be omitted to conform to your silly ideas of uber-neutral journalism.

If that isn't leading the question I dont know what is. And Brewik gets dragged along.

It may be, I can hardly see your obsession with it, though. It's not as if Brewik gave an answer he didn't believe in.

Jay felt he got thrown under a bus because he damm well was.

Yeah, well he's the fucking game director, what the fuck did you expect?

He was marked by name as why the game "failed" by some hack journalist in an effort to keep the "D3 sucks" circlejerk rolling that was up and running from the second the first screen were released.

Hack journalist, heh.

Do you have any idea what a circlejerk is? I'll give you a hint, it's the exact opposite of criticising stuff.

Yeah Jay didn't deal with it very professionally, but he didn't throw the first stone here.

He didn't just deal with it unprofessionally, his response was infantile and stupid. Brewik's criticism wasn't even remotely what you'd call "harsh", this is just Wilson getting sand in his vagina because not everyone is willing to blow him for the shoddy work that was D3.

I'm loving the fact that you think ad hominem is even remotely an appropriate response simply because something you've made has been criticised. Lightly.

I only refused to play III because IMO II wrapped up the story line plenty well enough. The third one is obviously going to try to outdo itself having nothing to build off of, and it sucks for it. That and general consensus leads me to believe the game sucks farts (and money) turned me off the game before it hit aussie shelves.

Really, he tries to pretend that Diablo III was any fun anywhere except for people completely new to RTS's. The original Diablo and DII was so damn good they spawned their own genre. III is nothing but a generic stocking-stuffer, it had none of the spirit.

If this guy had actually admitted there were problems I'd have been fine, but he took pains to make himself come off as blameless. I don't much like this man. not really sure if his next game will be all that good either.

Before commenting this, please read all. Im neither hater nor fanboy.

If a game director has equal power to movie directors, I would say good riddance. well made game (gameplay, graphics, etc), but some retarded design choices.

That said, the vocal haters of D3 really undermine the general opinion of the game. Most I know loved the game but grew tired of it after reaching 60, and recent estimations (made by sceptics to prove the decline in players) range from 300k to 1mill active players. Although thats an INSANE decline (10mill copies sold), 300k is still a pretty solid playerbase for a game. I play it occasionally (upped a bit the last weeks to prepare for the next patch), and the playerbase is big enough to get instant public games in any chapter at any hour. Even games thats considered "alive" (like WoW and SC2) got long queues for matches.

D3's first iteration was crap once you reached 60, but the current changes (monster lvl, paragon lvl, "uber" bosses and no more enemies that oneshot you) have made it a fun game with constant challenges and progress.

But, even though I enjoy the game with friends and solo, Im NOT going to ignore the elephants in the room:

I take it the director had a hand in all of these choices, and he screwed up. This is the ABC of game design, and if he didnt think this would create an outrage he really needs to read up a bit on his choice of profession.

TLDR: I enjoy pepperoni and pineapple pizza, but its better without pineapple and with onions instead.

D3 was my first ever Diablo game, believe it or not. I bought into the hype (Blizzard game n' all that) but sadly I was a twat and didn't read the "always online" DRM part. It was the first time I had encountered such an incredibly obstructive DRM, even compared to the kind of bullshit DRM Ubisoft was notoriously infamous for...couldn't play the game when I bought it, or even the day after. Error 37 everywhere.

I know it's not a big deal since it was only 2 days, but for someone trying a game out for the first time from a supposedly "legendary" franchise it was a MASSIVE kick in the balls. The fact that I would keep getting disconnected and experience LAG (character skipping/glitching, etc) in what I assumed was a singleplayer experience made things even more painful. A singleplayer game that has lag. Yes I know it has multiplayer and you can do shit with other people, but I don't WANT to do shit with other people, I want to be the lone hero alright?
I couldn't fucking believe someone at Blizzard thought it was a good idea.

I know as a first-time player I was supposed to see the game all the way through before judging it, but by the time I reached Act 2 Hell I was just bored the fuck out of my mind, put the game down and never resumed again. Just couldn't be bothered.

Warachia:

Draech:

If you dont think answering your own question and then making a person comment on that answer, then you dont know what a leading question is.

IncGamers: Do you think they bought the wrong people in? As we understand, Jay Wilson, for example, his background was RTS. From our point of view it looked like they misunderstood what kept people playing, The type of loot drops, which has been a big issues. One of the other issues is they have not listened to their community, and they have not analysed what makes up that addictive Diablo experience. What are your thoughts on that?

This right here is not an opinion question. This is a factual dictionary definition.

A question that suggests the particular answer or contains the information the examiner is looking to have confirmed.

No opinion needed.

That isn't a leading question, for it to be a leading question the interviewer would have to lead him toward a specific answer, which he didn't, Brewik could (and did) answer with whatever he wanted, they never asked Brewik to confirm their thoughts, they asked him to give his opinion on a statement.

As we understand, Jay Wilson, for example, his background was RTS. From our point of view it looked like they misunderstood what kept people playing, The type of loot drops, which has been a big issues. One of the other issues is they have not listened to their community, and they have not analysed what makes up that addictive Diablo experience.

Is not a a specific answer?

You are factually and objectively incorrect.

Not only that its nothing like anything Brewik says before in the interview.

When you say this isn't a leading question you are being objectively wrong.

Hammeroj:
I know I had a policy of not responding to you, but your flailing defense of Blizzard sometimes gets amusing to the point that I do want to reply.

Draech:
He quite literally answers his own question and makes Brewik comment on that answer.

Read the question again, and read what he said after the question. He's asking why the game turned out to be so polarizing, and providing a little background. He is certainly not answering his own question, not unless you have difficulties reading. The question is still there, and while the fact that he points out Jay Wilson having been an RTS designer prior to this does nudge him towards the answer, it's a bloody fact, and one that I don't think must be omitted to conform to your silly ideas of uber-neutral journalism.

If that isn't leading the question I dont know what is. And Brewik gets dragged along.

It may be, I can hardly see your obsession with it, though. It's not as if Brewik gave an answer he didn't believe in.

Jay felt he got thrown under a bus because he damm well was.

Yeah, well he's the fucking game director, what the fuck did you expect?

He was marked by name as why the game "failed" by some hack journalist in an effort to keep the "D3 sucks" circlejerk rolling that was up and running from the second the first screen were released.

Hack journalist, heh.

Do you have any idea what a circlejerk is? I'll give you a hint, it's the exact opposite of criticising stuff.

Yeah Jay didn't deal with it very professionally, but he didn't throw the first stone here.

He didn't just deal with it unprofessionally, his response was infantile and stupid. Brewik's criticism wasn't even remotely what you'd call "harsh", this is just Wilson getting sand in his vagina because not everyone is willing to blow him for the shoddy work that was D3.

I'm loving the fact that you think ad hominem is even remotely an appropriate response simply because something you've made has been criticised. Lightly.

As we understand, Jay Wilson, for example, his background was RTS. From our point of view it looked like they misunderstood what kept people playing, The type of loot drops, which has been a big issues. One of the other issues is they have not listened to their community, and they have not analysed what makes up that addictive Diablo experience.
This is not something the interviewer should say. That is something the interviewe should, but doesn't.

This right here is an answer to the question "Do you think they bought the wrong people in?". In it self a loaded question.

You can attack my credibility all you want (ironically I had a policy of not responding to you, but your failing of understanding dictionary definition makes me do so), but that doesn't make this any less an objectively leading question. When your main Argument is "Blizzard defense force" then you have no argument. As usual.

Also I didn't argue that I thought the ad Hominum was an appropriate response. I did the quite opposite. I called it unprofessional. You know in the quote of me you took. But hey when you cant argue what I say do your usual thing and make a strawman. I think you should stick with your policy of not responding to me. You dont seem to actually read what I write anyway.

Draech:
As we understand, Jay Wilson, for example, his background was RTS. From our point of view it looked like they misunderstood what kept people playing, The type of loot drops, which has been a big issues. One of the other issues is they have not listened to their community, and they have not analysed what makes up that addictive Diablo experience.

Is not a a specific answer?

You are factually and objectively incorrect.

Not only that its nothing like anything Brewik says before in the interview.

When you say this isn't a leading question you are being objectively wrong.

That's amusing, why don't you add several more adjectives in there, just to cement in how wrong I am? I'm thinking you should add "undeniably, indisputably, absolutely, positively, totally, unconditionally, utterly, downright wrong" to that. Or you could actually explain how he answered his own question.

It's not. The question was "Do you think they brought the wrong people in?", one that was not, indeed, answered by the interviewer himself. All he did was provide a minutia of background on Jay Wilson, 'least as far as the part you're so offended about goes.

Now the bolded part is funny. No, really, I laughed. Let's look at the transcript again, shall we?

Speaking of factually and objectively, you're lying through your god damn teeth. To say Brewik didn't have reservations about the game and that the question came out of nowhere is blatantly disingenuous, if not an outright lie.

By the way, I didn't say it was absolutely not a leading question. I said it might be (depending on what you define as a leading question, anyway), and I said I don't see your obsession with the fact that it may or may not be. Brewik's answer was his own, as evidenced by everything he said beforehand alone. Whether the question is leading or not is downright irrelevant given the context.

As we understand, Jay Wilson, for example, his background was RTS. From our point of view it looked like they misunderstood what kept people playing, The type of loot drops, which has been a big issues. One of the other issues is they have not listened to their community, and they have not analysed what makes up that addictive Diablo experience.
This is not something the interview should say. That is something

This right here is an answer to the question "Do you think they bought the wrong people in?". In it self a loaded question.

It's not an answer. An answer is "yes" or "no", followed by why. This is background information, and relevant information at that. What's doubly curious about your objections, here, is that it's directly building on what Brewik had already said. That's how a conversation happens. What do you think an interview should be, exactly? A completely impartial, "objective" set of questions so as not to offend your fragile sensibilities?

Glad to have your opinion on what the interviewer should say. It would be worth a shit if you weren't trying to misrepresent everything to your advantage.

Furthermore, this "loaded question" did not in fact come from nowhere. A question being loaded generally requires an unjustified assumption, and the assumption that Brewik didn't have the best of opinions of the game is hardly unjustified.

You can attack my credibility all you want (ironically I had a policy of not responding to you, but your failing of understanding dictionary definition makes me do so), but that doesn't make this any less an objectively leading question. When your main Argument is "Blizzard defense force" then you have no argument. As usual.

Oh, I will. You're providing lots of fodder, here.

You haven't established that I don't understand a dictionary definition of anything.

"Blizzard defense force" was not my main argument (because it wasn't even an argument), no matter how much you would like for it to be. It's what I said amused me about you enough that I decided to reply, it has nothing to do with the essence of any of your, or my own, points. But hey, good job trying to play a victim here.

Also I didn't argue that I thought the ad Hominum was an appropriate response. I did the quite opposite. I called it unprofessional. You know in the quote of me you took. But hey when you cant argue what I say do your usual thing and make a strawman. I think you should stick with your policy of not responding to me. You dont seem to actually read what I write anyway.

You called it unprofessional, and you implied that it wasn't uncalled for in the very next few words. That's what "but he didn't throw the first stone here" means, is it not? Otherwise, why would you say it? If it's just unprofessional, you say it's unprofessional and leave it at that. The only reason to say this is to shift blame.

Strawman my ass, you threw the line about the first stone in there for a reason.

P.S. I do read the drivel you write, perhaps that's the problem.

Hammeroj:
-snipping-

Let me try an explain it like you were five

Not loaded question.

Where were you last night?

Loaded Question

Were you at Tom's last night?

Get your definitions strait.

Under those definitions the Interviewer is clearly leading Brewik to throw mud at Jay here. Maybe Jay had it coming. Maybe Brewik would have gone that exact same way if he had gotten perfectly neutral questions. I wont ever know, because that isn't how it went down. Incgamers had a narrative they wanted confirmation on and they got what they wanted. And so the "Diablo 3 is crap" was kept alive for another interview after having existed before the first screenshots of the game was released.

Further more since you decide to argue what I "imply" rather than what I actually write, then Ill do the same thing. Your arguement that the moon is made of cheese is absolutely ridicules. Even thou you never actually wrote that, but the thing about implying something is that you dont have to write it. Deal with what i am saying. Having something implicated is only something you can do on your end. Deal with what it says. Dont apply secondary meanings in your head.

But ill say it again since you want to keep setting up that strawman

I argued that Jay was indeed unprofessional, but also that he wasn't the instigator. If Brewik had just criticized the game (he has plenty of good solid arguments here) rather than criticizing a specific man behind the game (as a result of Incgamer dragging him out to have him thrown at the lions) I would be calling Jay a giant man child. Yeah Jay got a lot of well deserved flak for acting like a teen (even if it is facebook, people need to realise this place isn't private), but for some reason the Incgamers seem to waddle away completely clean even thou they started this fight. When this whole thing first came up I argued that this interview could have cost Jay his job (regardless of him responding or not. If a big enough part of the internet blames him then there is a chance the guy paying his salary will as well through popular opinion). To go after a man in a way that can cost him his livelihood, when I also find it unfair to put a spotlight on the man as the reason for D3's short comings.

My personal bias does play into this in that I dont think it is fair to expect developers to have media training so they know how to deal with sort of stuff. They are general nerds, not rockstars. They are suppose to make games, not deal with journalists.

Draech:
Let me try an explain it like you were five.

Don't see the reason for it. Let me see you not act like you were five and actually respond to what I've said directly.

dtgenshiken7:
I only refused to play III because IMO II wrapped up the story line plenty well enough. The third one is obviously going to try to outdo itself having nothing to build off of, and it sucks for it. That and general consensus leads me to believe the game sucks farts (and money) turned me off the game before it hit aussie shelves.

Really, he tries to pretend that Diablo III was any fun anywhere except for people completely new to RTS's. The original Diablo and DII was so damn good they spawned their own genre. III is nothing but a generic stocking-stuffer, it had none of the spirit.

If this guy had actually admitted there were problems I'd have been fine, but he took pains to make himself come off as blameless. I don't much like this man. not really sure if his next game will be all that good either.

I would actually advice you to try D3 now, the current iteration is pretty good (and it costs next to nothing, saw it for 15$ here the other day). Ofc the story is what it is, but the core game is a great experience.

The thing that makes D3 seem worse than it is, is that the haters are very vocal compared to the ones that found it either "ok" or "good". The game isnt close to the definition of sucking (which is reserved for games like "shadow the hedgehog", "duke nukem forever", "superman 64"), yet it got a few design flaws that keeps it from being considered an unique experience. What spawned the extreme hate is baffling to me, but I assume its the broken promises (made by Jay) and the extreme hype not living up to what it really was: A satisfying hack and slash without much depth.

I don't get all the hate for this guy. The way I look at it, he's helping me save money by destroying a series I might have otherwise bought into for pure nostalgia reasons. What's more, by leaving that clusterfuck and working on a new project, he's more or less cemented Blizzard's status as a "don't buy" publisher, further fattening my wallet. I mean, they've already trashed Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo. All they have to do now is shit out deformed Lost Vikings blunder and I will be able to safely ignore Blizzard forever.

Sigh, And the Escapist shows just how old they really are.

OT: Good luck to him for his future projects. He did a pretty good job at an impossible task with Diablo 3 so kudos for that. Deserves quite a bit respect for how he's gotten through all the bullshit that's been thrown his way too.

black_knight1337:
Sigh, And the Escapist shows just how old they really are.

OT: Good luck to him for his future projects. He did a pretty good job at an impossible task with Diablo 3 so kudos for that. Deserves quite a bit respect for how he's gotten through all the bullshit that's been thrown his way too.

How old would that be?

And why exactly are you calling Diablo 3 an impossible task?

Hammeroj:
How old would that be?

Oh around 12-13 ish. Directed at all the crap directed at him on the first page. I mean you don't have to like the guy or what he did but at least show him a bit of respect

And why exactly are you calling Diablo 3 an impossible task?

Because of the hype for it. 11 years of fan expectations constantly building. It's impossible to get anywhere near that level.

Zenn3k:

chiefohara:
wow...

Played Diablo 1 and 2 enjoyed both.

Bought Diablo 3 a week ago ... and im really enjoying it!

I understand the rage at always having to be online, and auction house stuff (haven't bothered with that part yet) but all these claims saying the game is terrible is pretty surprising. I don't agree with a lot of the policy stuff either, but otherwise.... hell this is coming across as a really polished and fun game to me.

As for Jay Wilson... best of luck wherever you go.

P.S.

Also loved starcraft 2, but that seems to be a no no as well these days.

Yes, the game is great on the surface, at first glance. Have you gotten to the point of the game where all that matters is stacking like 5 stats and only 5 stats...on every single class? No? Well talk come back when you have. Its the itemization that kills Diablo 3. Its the most important part of the game, and its dreadful. Primary, Vit, Crit, Crit%, and Resists All. Attack speed used to matter, then they nerfed it, now its useless. Farming for 2 days in Inferno for +2 Dex, +50 Vit, and +25 Resist All on 1 slot, when 99.99999% of the drops you find will be completely useless...basically forcing you into auction house, now you're farming for gold. Farming for days...for gold...to buy from the auction house....

wOOOoooooo

Plus the first time through, the bosses drop extra rares...on your next THREE playthroughs of the game, their drops are all trash. So that blinds the newbies a bit too, boss farming sucks. In fact you can't really farm effectively at all until Inferno, which is why you are basically forced there very quickly after 1st enchanted foray into Diablo, lord of the bitches.

Its trash, don't look silly defending it.

It feels like Diablo 3 was made for people like me who play through it once on normal and maybe again on normal somewhere way down the line. For this kind of play style the game is alright, not great, but alright.

I do not in any way feel like the game should have been made for people like me though, Diablo 2 seemed to fit everyone who was interested in it but I guess Blizzard's shift in focus didn't allow for that. I agree that the auction house is designed for the hardcore players who are grinding through difficulties and require the loot to continue which sucks.

It's easy to see why the idea was implemented but it just seems like poor taste.

Bibliotek:

dtgenshiken7:
I only refused to play III because IMO II wrapped up the story line plenty well enough. The third one is obviously going to try to outdo itself having nothing to build off of, and it sucks for it. That and general consensus leads me to believe the game sucks farts (and money) turned me off the game before it hit aussie shelves.

Really, he tries to pretend that Diablo III was any fun anywhere except for people completely new to RTS's. The original Diablo and DII was so damn good they spawned their own genre. III is nothing but a generic stocking-stuffer, it had none of the spirit.

If this guy had actually admitted there were problems I'd have been fine, but he took pains to make himself come off as blameless. I don't much like this man. not really sure if his next game will be all that good either.

I would actually advice you to try D3 now, the current iteration is pretty good (and it costs next to nothing, saw it for 15$ here the other day). Ofc the story is what it is, but the core game is a great experience.

The thing that makes D3 seem worse than it is, is that the haters are very vocal compared to the ones that found it either "ok" or "good". The game isnt close to the definition of sucking (which is reserved for games like "shadow the hedgehog", "duke nukem forever", "superman 64"), yet it got a few design flaws that keeps it from being considered an unique experience. What spawned the extreme hate is baffling to me, but I assume its the broken promises (made by Jay) and the extreme hype not living up to what it really was: A satisfying hack and slash without much depth.

I remember a reddit quote

/paraphrase
If Diablo 3 had been the same game, but developed by another developer and called "Demon Slayer" then people would like it.
/paraphrase

D3 has some fairly significant flaws, but it does have some improvements as well over the last game (because I know I will be asked to point them out. D3 was better at setting up, letting you test and execute playstyles).

Either way it is a solid game for what it is. Not for what it was suppose to be.

black_knight1337:

Hammeroj:
How old would that be?

Oh around 12-13 ish. Directed at all the crap directed at him on the first page. I mean you don't have to like the guy or what he did but at least show him a bit of respect

And why exactly are you calling Diablo 3 an impossible task?

Because of the hype for it. 11 years of fan expectations constantly building. It's impossible to get anywhere near that level.

Why exactly would you "show some respect" for someone who spent 7 years and millions of dollars to make a game that has half of its prequel's features from 11 years ago and is infinitely worse than a game that 20 guys from New Zealand made as a side-job with zero funding? Do you actually have an argument or do you just call people "12 year-olds" because you are upset?

Draech:

I remember a reddit quote

/paraphrase
If Diablo 3 had been the same game, but developed by another developer and called "Demon Slayer" then people would like it.
/paraphrase

D3 has some fairly significant flaws, but it does have some improvements as well over the last game (because I know I will be asked to point them out. D3 was better at setting up, letting you test and execute playstyles).

Either way it is a solid game for what it is. Not for what it was suppose to be.

Torchlight 2 is a prime example of this :D
It was an equally fun game with almost identical mechanics, which got about the same review scores as D3. Yet it was praised by "the vocals" (as they shall be named henceforth) while D3 was hated. If you look at the 2 objectively, they're pretty much identical (I have no favourite).

Did I just spawn a D3 vs T2 flame war? Maybe... We shall see *leans back and heats up the popcorn*

Bibliotek:

Draech:

I remember a reddit quote

/paraphrase
If Diablo 3 had been the same game, but developed by another developer and called "Demon Slayer" then people would like it.
/paraphrase

D3 has some fairly significant flaws, but it does have some improvements as well over the last game (because I know I will be asked to point them out. D3 was better at setting up, letting you test and execute playstyles).

Either way it is a solid game for what it is. Not for what it was suppose to be.

Torchlight 2 is a prime example of this :D
It was an equally fun game with almost identical mechanics, which got about the same review scores as D3. Yet it was praised by "the vocals" (as they shall be named henceforth) while D3 was hated. If you look at the 2 objectively, they're pretty much identical (I have no favourite).

Did I just spawn a D3 vs T2 flame war? Maybe... We shall see *leans back and heats up the popcorn*

Indeed, they are identical. Apart from the fact that TL2 has no pay-to-win AH, has talent trees with a ton of customization, costs a third of D3 and doesn't have always online DRM.

black_knight1337:
Oh around 12-13 ish. Directed at all the crap directed at him on the first page. I mean you don't have to like the guy or what he did but at least show him a bit of respect

Doesn't respect have to be earned, though? What has he done in that regard?

And why exactly are you calling Diablo 3 an impossible task?

Because of the hype for it. 11 years of fan expectations constantly building. It's impossible to get anywhere near that level.

Are you sure that's how expectations work? That the longer people wait for a particular game, the more they expect from it? Why would that happen?

And a little correction. It's not 11 years, it's 4 years. Diablo 3 was announced in 2008.

Carnagath:

Bibliotek:

Draech:

I remember a reddit quote

/paraphrase
If Diablo 3 had been the same game, but developed by another developer and called "Demon Slayer" then people would like it.
/paraphrase

D3 has some fairly significant flaws, but it does have some improvements as well over the last game (because I know I will be asked to point them out. D3 was better at setting up, letting you test and execute playstyles).

Either way it is a solid game for what it is. Not for what it was suppose to be.

Torchlight 2 is a prime example of this :D
It was an equally fun game with almost identical mechanics, which got about the same review scores as D3. Yet it was praised by "the vocals" (as they shall be named henceforth) while D3 was hated. If you look at the 2 objectively, they're pretty much identical (I have no favourite).

Did I just spawn a D3 vs T2 flame war? Maybe... We shall see *leans back and heats up the popcorn*

Indeed, they are identical. Apart from the fact that TL2 has no pay-to-win AH, has talent trees with a ton of customization, costs a third of D3 and doesn't have always online DRM.

Called it! *crunch crunch*

Bibliotek:

Carnagath:

Bibliotek:

Torchlight 2 is a prime example of this :D
It was an equally fun game with almost identical mechanics, which got about the same review scores as D3. Yet it was praised by "the vocals" (as they shall be named henceforth) while D3 was hated. If you look at the 2 objectively, they're pretty much identical (I have no favourite).

Did I just spawn a D3 vs T2 flame war? Maybe... We shall see *leans back and heats up the popcorn*

Indeed, they are identical. Apart from the fact that TL2 has no pay-to-win AH, has talent trees with a ton of customization, costs a third of D3 and doesn't have always online DRM.

Called it! *crunch crunch*

They are not identical. At all. I played them both.

D3 was a massive bore-fest that was designed entirely with the AH in mind while TL2 was essentially an updated D2 with less of the checklist sidequesting and more random finds. The pace of the game slowed to a crawl because of the worthless incremental gear and gold drops and, as always with Blizzard games, the voice acting could be recorded and played on lullaby tracks. I was a misguided attempt to cash in on a title and I will admit that it more than covered the production costs, but it greatly lowered the expectations of people from Blizzard. It's all about money now, just like the Call of Duty franchise.

TL2 is closer to Titan Quest than Diablo. TL2 had a smaller budget, less than a fraction of the development time and still turned out better in every way in comparison to D3. The puzzles are fun, the monsters and characters are colorful, the UI is one of the best I have seen in an action-rts.

D3 has the advantage of being more well known, but were D3 the first game in the series, we would have never heard of it again until the next decade, at least!

I used to like Jay Wilson. I listened to his game design videos on Diablo 3 and to his Blizzard panels at Blizzcon and such and I enjoyed his well spoken responses. I challenged some ideas he had, but he seemed like he was in control.

Then I played D3...like 10 minutes in I hated the guy. Few of his design decisions fit the playing style or goal of an ARPG. Such a shame.

CrossLOPER:
people from Blizzard. It's all about money now, just like the Call of Duty franchise.

TL2 is closer to Titan Quest than Diablo. TL2 had a smaller budget, less than a fraction of the development time and still turned out better in every way in comparison to D3. The puzzles are fun, the monsters and characters are colorful, the UI is one of the best I have seen in an action-rts.

D3 has the advantage of being more well known, but were D3 the first game in the series, we would have never heard of it again until the next decade, at least!

Yes. TL2 is better in every conceivable way. It's incredible if you consider how little time and money was spent on it in comparison to the game which shall not be named.

Alright! Time to order the pizza!

I'm going to call all of the ol' gang and do a speed run in Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 in celebration of this event!

WOOOOOOO, F*** THAT LOSER!!!

Bibliotek:

Carnagath:

Bibliotek:

Torchlight 2 is a prime example of this :D
It was an equally fun game with almost identical mechanics, which got about the same review scores as D3. Yet it was praised by "the vocals" (as they shall be named henceforth) while D3 was hated. If you look at the 2 objectively, they're pretty much identical (I have no favourite).

Did I just spawn a D3 vs T2 flame war? Maybe... We shall see *leans back and heats up the popcorn*

Indeed, they are identical. Apart from the fact that TL2 has no pay-to-win AH, has talent trees with a ton of customization, costs a third of D3 and doesn't have always online DRM.

Called it! *crunch crunch*

So, basically you make a silly, factually incorrect statement, with intent to cause inflammatory replies, and then spam "crunch crunch". There's a word for that, trolling. People don't like it very much around here :/

Hammeroj:

black_knight1337:
Oh around 12-13 ish. Directed at all the crap directed at him on the first page. I mean you don't have to like the guy or what he did but at least show him a bit of respect

Doesn't respect have to be earned, though? What has he done in that regard?

And why exactly are you calling Diablo 3 an impossible task?

Because of the hype for it. 11 years of fan expectations constantly building. It's impossible to get anywhere near that level.

Are you sure that's how expectations work? That the longer people wait for a particular game, the more they expect from it? Why would that happen?

And a little correction. It's not 11 years, it's 4 years. Diablo 3 was announced in 2008.

Just because it was announced in 2008 doesn't mean they started to working on it then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_III#Development

Development on Diablo III began in 2001 when Blizzard North was still in operation

Draech:

Warachia:

Draech:

If you dont think answering your own question and then making a person comment on that answer, then you dont know what a leading question is.

IncGamers: Do you think they bought the wrong people in? As we understand, Jay Wilson, for example, his background was RTS. From our point of view it looked like they misunderstood what kept people playing, The type of loot drops, which has been a big issues. One of the other issues is they have not listened to their community, and they have not analysed what makes up that addictive Diablo experience. What are your thoughts on that?

This right here is not an opinion question. This is a factual dictionary definition.

A question that suggests the particular answer or contains the information the examiner is looking to have confirmed.

No opinion needed.

That isn't a leading question, for it to be a leading question the interviewer would have to lead him toward a specific answer, which he didn't, Brewik could (and did) answer with whatever he wanted, they never asked Brewik to confirm their thoughts, they asked him to give his opinion on a statement.

As we understand, Jay Wilson, for example, his background was RTS. From our point of view it looked like they misunderstood what kept people playing, The type of loot drops, which has been a big issues. One of the other issues is they have not listened to their community, and they have not analysed what makes up that addictive Diablo experience.

Is not a a specific answer?

You are factually and objectively incorrect.

Not only that its nothing like anything Brewik says before in the interview.

When you say this isn't a leading question you are being objectively wrong.

Sorry, but you are wrong here, I didn't say it wasn't an answer, I said it wasn't a leading question, they don't want to have anything confirmed, if the did they would have said "do you agree with" or something along those lines, saying "what do you think?" makes it an open question, asking his opinion on their statement, they aren't looking for any specific answer.

Warachia:

Draech:

Warachia:

That isn't a leading question, for it to be a leading question the interviewer would have to lead him toward a specific answer, which he didn't, Brewik could (and did) answer with whatever he wanted, they never asked Brewik to confirm their thoughts, they asked him to give his opinion on a statement.

As we understand, Jay Wilson, for example, his background was RTS. From our point of view it looked like they misunderstood what kept people playing, The type of loot drops, which has been a big issues. One of the other issues is they have not listened to their community, and they have not analysed what makes up that addictive Diablo experience.

Is not a a specific answer?

You are factually and objectively incorrect.

Not only that its nothing like anything Brewik says before in the interview.

When you say this isn't a leading question you are being objectively wrong.

Sorry, but you are wrong here, I didn't say it wasn't an answer, I said it wasn't a leading question, they don't want to have anything confirmed, if the did they would have said "do you agree with" or something along those lines, saying "what do you think?" makes it an open question, asking his opinion on their statement, they aren't looking for any specific answer.

That is grasping for straws.

The correct definition of a leading question is a question that contains the information the examiner is trying to confirm. This follows that definition. It doesn't matter if you go "What do you think of that" afterwards. The issue is that he put the info in there as asking. You are still factually wrong if you deny it being a leading question.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 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
Register for a free account here