Was diablo 3 intended to be boring so players would not attach to it?

  • #21
    Haven't even read your post. But the answer is no.
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChB2_IPc-HVXbi0jS1Riljg
    ^ YouTube.Com/IceBleuGaming ! It's a thing! Check it oooout!
  • #22
    Why did the discussion lead to weather Diablo 3 is a MMO or not? I think the OP takes up alot of valid points about the state of games being created for no more than friday nights entertainment and thrown into the bin the day after.

    I don´t think the game was designed to be thrown in the bin really, but considering the countless years of development, they really landed a shitty product. Shallow, short, tirelessly repetitive (without being nowhere near any fun). The biggest upside I can give Diablo 3 is that I find it extremely beautiful and visually appealing.
  • #23
    I agree game developpers in general make games more and more simple. They probably attract more players like this, but experienced players keep being disappointed.
  • #24

    Why did the discussion lead to weather Diablo 3 is a MMO or not? I think the OP takes up alot of valid points about the state of games being created for no more than friday nights entertainment and thrown into the bin the day after.

    I don´t think the game was designed to be thrown in the bin really, but considering the countless years of development, they really landed a shitty product. Shallow, short, tirelessly repetitive (without being nowhere near any fun). The biggest upside I can give Diablo 3 is that I find it extremely beautiful and visually appealing.


    Since your post touched on the main point of my post, I'l address you. I feel it's actually a step further than games just being a night's entertainment to be thrown away. I feel that games are purposefully designed for people who don't look for any depth in games andare carless with their money.

    It's like gaming companies are moving towards impulse buyers. I believe they are basically "scamming" players into buying poorly made games where very little effort was put into them.

    Even simplistic games such as Pokemon took advantage of aspects like elemental damage being a large part of the game. Were the diablo 3 developers really that bad at creating a meaningful, depth-filled game? No, there's no way. They must have intentionally aimed at creating a shallow game, and I should have caught on to this from the annual pass. Why exactly was this annual pass deal created? The developers wanted players to purchase diablo, play it for a month, buy a few items on the RMAH, get bored, and then ultimately go back to WoW.

    Cha-Ching! they make money because you're now playing both of their games, where if Diablo had a great amount of replayability and depth then some users might give WoW up, for a f2p game. That's not good for their wallets.


    As for the rest of you, you really need to rethink your concept of an MMORPG.

    http://www.urbandict...php?term=mmorpg

    " 1. MMORPG 837 up, 194 down
    An acronym for "Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game". Players play the video game competing against and cooperating with other players connected to an online network. Most require players to purchase the software and pay a subscription fee to participate. "

    Diablo 3 fits every single one of these descriptions, and 837 people agree that this description is the accurate definition of an MMORPG. Therefore, Diablo 3 is in fact an MMORPG the same way Diablo 2 was. If you can argue this with verifiable facts, you can stay in the discussion.

    The term has been around since the 1990's, for most any game where you sink large amounts of time interconnected in a 'persistent' world (Read: A static world you can log in and log out of). I've been playing games since the early 80's, so I think I know the difference,

    If you define a persistent world only as a game where you're always logged in to the same server, then I guess raiding on WoW is not an MMORPG either, because an instanced server === creating a game on diablo.
  • #25

    Diablo 3 fits every single one of these descriptions, and 837 people agree that this description is the accurate definition of an MMORPG. Therefore, Diablo 3 is in fact an MMORPG the same way Diablo 2 was.


    Errrmmm.... these things really exist in degrees.

    I generally agree that Diablo III is, more or less, an MMORPG. I prefer MMO-lite as a descriptor.

    Massively: This is where D3 is weakest in the definition, and, in some ways weaker than D2. Party size is severely capped.

    Multiplayer: Sure, though this is a bit of a wash. More of a wash with D2 IMO.

    Online: YES. You have no choice. Unlike D2.

    RPG: D3 is, of course, much weaker than D2 here on many levels. It is about as much an RPG as "Gauntlet Arcade". The thinness of the role playing element is also reinforced by the meh atmosphere, which diligently checks off the high fantasy genre reference points without any cohesion, suspense, or understanding of it or execution on it.
  • #26
    D3 is not an MMO since it's not persistent as others have probably already pointed out. It's more like Ikari Warriors but with wizards and loot.

    I think Blizzard decided to take out most of the boring tedious role playing bits and made the game more focused on what people really want and that's killing stuff and finding loot.
  • #27
    The point he was making, fanboy tsunami, was that he thinks Diablo 3 was made to have a relatively short life since they're not pulling in subscription fees.

    You do see that games are deliberately designed with short lives (CoD) so they can get the dlc sold then replace it next year.

    Whether they really did with D3 or hoped the RMAH would replace subs is the question.

    Only reason D3 is always online is for DRM.
    "For the price of one bullet you can eat 4 hotcakes." - Vash the Stampede.
  • #28

    The point he was making, fanboy tsunami, was that he thinks Diablo 3 was made to have a relatively short life since they're not pulling in subscription fees.

    You do see that games are deliberately designed with short lives (CoD) so they can get the dlc sold then replace it next year.

    Whether they really did with D3 or hoped the RMAH would replace subs is the question.

    Only reason D3 is always online is for DRM.


    Yes, that is the point, thanks for understanding. The vague reference to it being an MMO is basically just anyone's perspective.

    Personally I feel this is an activision strategy, and I believe the annual pass deal should've been a dead giveaway.
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes