Quote from "Shadowdragon85" »In the gameplay video, Leah is Cain's nurse (I think the video calls her a house maid) so if thats the case then she isn't related to him. She is just keeping care of him.
Quote from name="HC dude" »Hey Nefelia,
IMO you go a bit over the top. The "skilled" or "hard core" players do a lot of good for the game. They create fansites, run the good clans/guilds and with their enthusiasm pull in new players (payers). They keep the game alive long after most casual players are gone. I sure think that Blizzard values this.
Also, in D2 some hc players would take the trouble to make pricelists that listed most of the popular items so ppl had at least a rough guideline when they wanted to trade.
(Yes, I like serious players)
Quote from "NP-RandyWest" »It sucks that Blizzard always think so much about the random retard, but never about the skilled player.
0
If I recall correctly, Cain said "If it's not one nursemaid, it's another". He's using the term 'nursemaid' figuratively to describe an overbearing woman who 'mothers' him too much.
0
Trading is done better on the worse of the free online games than it is done in Diablo II. I can't really blame Diablo II for this, since the new trading systems and mechanisms only came out years after Diablo's release. The current Diablo II system of creating games and comparing content in the trade screen is clumsy, slow, and boring. I very much enjoy the various forms of auction houses in more recent games that allow you put an item for sale at a certain price, and lets you forget about it until get a message informing you about the completion of the transaction hours or days later, along with an automatic cash deposit into your bank account.
Of course, a more sophisticated auction house could maybe allow a biding system (though I don't think that would be necessary), or even allow one to demand other forms of payments instead of gold (eg, Runes, Gems, etc).
I have the feeling that many who are calling for no change at all haven't seen many of the newer games and the better trade systems they employ. Gaming technology and concepts have advanced quickly in the 8 years since the release of Diablo II. Blizzard would be well advised to adopt the best of these innovations to make Diablo III the best game it can possibly be. :cool:)
0
You make fair points. Many hard-core players do contribute to the game by creating and fostering communities, both online and in-game.
The contempt I see here for casual gamers, however, is not a positive contribution, and not likely to be appreciated by Blizzard.
I do as well. Serious players are the ones that create the forums and fan-sites I frequent. They are also the ones that write up the useful guides, skills analyses, and explore the mechanics of the game and make interesting discoveries about them.
However, there is a difference between a serious player and a brat that just spends too much time playing and is unable to contribute positively to online discussions. Calling casual players "random retards" doesn't impress me, and quite likely does not impress Blizzard as well.
0
Those "random retards" (ie, "casual players" as we adults know them) make up the bulk of the player base. As such, they make up the majority of Blizzards revenues. Making the game fun and memorable for them will be Blizzard's top priority, in order that they continue to think highly of Blizzard's products and keep buying them in the future.
The "skilled players" (I can only shake my head in befuddlement at this) make up a small fraction of Diablo players, and, judging by your hostility to casual gamers, do not have the best interests of the game in mind. In fact, judging by the amount of hard-core gamers advocating the current sytem in order for them to continue ripping off casual gamers, Diablo III would be a better game without them.
0
For that matter, not all adults make for mature and friendly party members. I know plenty of adults who revert to children whenever they get in fromt of a keyboard, and have experienced plenty of abuse from (supposed) adults while playing Diablo II.
0
I very much enjoy the artwork, and consider it a significant improvement over the bland colours and textures of quite a few locations in Diablo II. Diablo I had some very flovourful artwork that added to the dark mood of the game. And yet, Diablo I was limited to a single series of catacombs under a corrupted cathedral/monastery and the deep levels of Hell, where such artwork was very appropriate.
Diablo III will likely be as varied (or moreso) as Diablo II, and as such a variety of artwork is appropriate. If the dungeons are not quite as dark as they were in Diablo II, I can only assume the change was inacted to improve the quality of the gameplay. Honestly, how many people playing Diablo II entered 'The Pit', 'the Underground Passage', 'The Cave' or other such areas where light was limited to a small radius? I have never heard praise or appreciation for, much less frequent play in, these areas, until this whole "artwork direction" brouhaha started up.
I am left baffled.
For the record, I have never played WoW, and couldn't care less whether or not the artwork of Diablo III resembles the artwork of WoW. I am sure there are many other like myself that don't care for comparisons to WoW, as we would rather see the artwork for Diablo III judged on its own merits, regardless of possible origin or influence.