Quote from Jaetch
Quote from GInthrilThe fans and customers have spoken, they have spoken before release, during beta, after release and even now but blizzard just won't listen. They're going to stick to what makes them money, once they realize they start losing customer base they give the fans a little bit of what they want to keep them hanging on and then it's back to business.
I'm sure all the improvements they've made so far haven't been directed to player concerns. I'm sure the newest blue post by one of the devs regarding itemization and the AH has nothing to do with what players are concerned about and was pulled straight out of his ass.
In the wise words of Bashiok:
aren't you thankful?
^^ and this is exactly what I'm referring to in my above post. This toxic drivel "aren't you thankful" that the more immature crowd continues to throw in Blizzs face, a comment that has been taken severely out of context, has become the battle cry of the stupid and immature community.
1
The biggest thing is cut out the monologuing. It didn't add anything to have Azmodan on Diablo constantly taunt us.
The next biggest flaw is to rewrite Belial/Hekan to make it less obvious that Hekan is Belial. I'm not sure how we could do that, though.
Finally, I think it would be better if we could give Cain's death more impact. All it does is give us another reason to chase Maghda into Act 2, as Leah immediately accepts Cain's prophecies as soon as Tyreal shows her that Angels do exist. I mean, we would have chased Maghda into Act 2 anyway, given what she did to Wistram, and what she wanted to do to Tyreal. It is necessary, given that the Book of Tyreal shows us that Cain knew Adria was once the co-leader of the Coven, so we either change that part (but then you still have to deal with him being more likely to spot Adria's evil then anyone else), or come up with another way to kill him. While I don't have a problem with his death, I just think it didn't improve the story.
4
Sometimes I feel sorry for Blizzard, which is unusual for my feelings about a corporation. I mean, they're one of the better developers. No matter whether you agree or disagree with the direction they take the game, they at least TRY and make it game first, they support things past the first 6 months without asking for more money (as opposed to companies that pump out 4 to 5 DLCs, including one that comes out on release day containing very near vital information for the story, and pop out maybe two patches), and they generally keep to consumer friendly business models (sure, there are some iffy things here and there, but they aren't dumping in BS stuff like EA).
But then people come along and say Blizz doesn't listen to the fans, immediately after one of the actual developers (not a CM or PR "dev") talks about their plans, specifically in relation to suggestions. Or they call the game a cash grab, and then go and happily purchase up the next Madden or CoD every year. Or they get butthurt that they had trouble playing on release night due to serve issues, and go and review bomb metacritic and amazon. Or they act like they deserve a refund after playing 100+ hours, and get touchy when people disagree.
I'm not saying Blizz is perfect, but man do they have some terrible forum users. It's almost like the forum equivalent of a MOBA game.
I just want to point out that saying things "are too much blizz fanboy shit" only hurts you. A) it makes you less likely to actually listen to evidence (cause you assume it's just some fanboy shit) and B: people start treating you like a whiny mouth breather cause you ignore points because of a personal prejudice. I'm not saying that there aren't some Blizzard fanboys who would gladly buy a box of shit stamped with their name on it. But writing off all their arguments cause they are fanboys just moves you closer to the opposite camp, who says everything Blizzard does is terrible now, and they were perfect a decade ago (while buying all their games).
2
Before we start, I think we can agree the item drops were a little off (basically needing to be in Act 3 to get items to let you beat Act 2), and it's not great when mobs can one shot you from off the screen. Aside from these, how would the difficultly have been improved (assuming they stayed true to the original idea, in that only a very few would actually be able to complete it)?
In an ARPG, the obvious way to make it more difficult is increasing monster strength/damage/numbers. Alternately, they could improve the AI. I'm not sure how much the AI could have been improved, so I'll work with the first one (if you have good examples of AI, feel free to work off that).
For dealing with improved monsters, I can only think of a few ways for players to improve: grind for levels, grind for loot, or improve character control so you can manually dodge attacks.
I think in this case, level grinding is out cause you get so little stat bonuses from levels (a few points when you regularly have 1000's of them), so they COULD have done that, but they' either need a HUGE amount of levels, or they'd have to rework the skills/stats so they radically improve every few levels. In any rate, this, to me, is basically the same idea as the loot, so I'll cover more of it there.
Grinding for loot. It's what they did. Yes, a gear check is one form of difficultly, no different than any other RPG. The issue here is the same as gaining levels, as things tend to increase exponentially, then eventually you get to the point where you have to take 100 hours to get any progress (unless they just make it so you can out level any content). For levels, it's because it always takes more to gain the next level than it did before (linear, exponential, or quadratic only change how fast that happens). For items, it's because every upgrade puts you closer to the BiS, which means there are less items that can be an upgrade.
For the player skill, I tend to believe them when they said it wasn't much fun to try and dodge EVERY attack (which is what they said most people ended up trying to do). I, personally, think so because the mouse is actually a really clunky way to move around (not aim, it's really good for that). I mean, we only have a limited form of this (kiting) and many of the guides comparing kiting builds to others all say the same, many people find this boring. This changes in a game with different controls (for example, the best part of Kingdom of Amalur's combat was that I could dodge or block or parry instead of just taking the hit).
So, all that said, I can't see where Blizz went wrong, assuming you believe their stated goal of making it nearly impossible and only for the hardest of the hardcore (aka, not about trying to get people to buy gear on the RMAH). Also taking into account what I mentioned earlier (and other little niggles that crop up, like certain champ affixes being OPed or some such). The control scheme prevented most of the player skill, so their only two alternatives where both time sinks.
1
You're also forgetting perhaps the most important action - picking up items. The reduced precision of the controller means they basically have to add a dedicated button and use the second mouse button as a cursor. Think how terrible it is to pick up items that aren't in storage in FO3 or Skyrim. Alternatly they would just auto pick up.
I, personally, am very skeptical that this game will be even remotely fun on a console, just because SO much of the skills are designed around area placement.
Anyway, as to why people are so upset about the idea that the game was designed for consoles (I don't think it was, but I won't bother with why, it's been said many times above) is because either A) They think of consoles as lesser,
As a change of speed, how many skills can you use in PoE? When I tried it, I only saw the 7 (or was it 8) options, M1, 2, 3, and 1 through 4 or 5. I don't remember anyone complaining that PoE was designed for consoles.
1
If you look at it that way, then it works out WAY better, and my personal experience is drop upgrades are roughly on par with D2. The drops didn't change, it's just more people were trying the "end game," assuming that anyone was supposed to be able to beat it with not much effort. I guess Blizzard should have made that more clear.
1
Also, I feel it has to be said - the AH doesn't have to be used, and there IS a person to person trading function.
That said, I think the problem with the AH (aside from person issues such as "I prefer to trade with a person, not a website") is that good gear became too easy. Possibly because higher level characters sold gear to lower level. Which is basically a nice way of saying the AH made it too easy to trade with other people, making the flow of items to fast. Not sure how it's fixable.
2
Eh, not Duriel. It needs to be a granite block inlaid with the map outline of Act 3. Inlaid with lead.
1
Also, doesn't the N52 auto switch profiles based on the .exe launched? I know Razer version of it can, and according to Wikipedia it can. So...you're too lazy to make a second profile that auto switches?
No, the key binding thing is a legit issue. The hateful attitude goes WAY beyond that, to the point where I don't see why he's still playing either. Just the fact that he actually thought an optional entertainment forum could be as bad as living in North Korea shows his level of maturity. If his only complaint was the key binding thing, I'd agree with you. But it seems it's not.
1
No, I see how it's "not that big a deal" but I feel there are better ways then doing it then reducing the NV stack.
1
It recently dawned on me that with all the posts I've seen about it, no one defines what "End Game" means to them (which is why I put it in quotes, it's never been defined), and what kind of game should have it. I feel this is something that needs to be defined before we can have any productive discussion on Diablo 3's "End Game" content, or lack there of. Hopefully this will allow us to get a better idea of what we're arguing about (if I have a poor understanding of your position, it is unlikely I can effectively argue against it, and it unlikely you can effectively argue for it).
So, please vote, and please elaborate on your opinion (the point is to get the unsaid assumptions out in the open, because I think the various sides are arguing about their beliefs without stating them). As I only spent a few minutes thinking up poll options, please ask if you have another option, I'll try and add it. And please try and keep your answers to questions 1 and 2 separate, as much as possible.
To start off, my opinion:
Question 1)
To me, "End Game" means on going new content, that is both outside the story, and beyond what the "average" (average as in, the average forum goer/serious gamer) player will get to, with a side order of challenge/horde/points modes. So, for D3, it's Inferno. For Borderlands, it was Crawmerax and Moxie's Underdome. For TL, it was that endless random dungeon (that I never bothered with). For Strategy games like Civ or Anno, it's challenge maps that come out periodically. For other games, it's the score attack modes (again, that I don't play). I generally don't include any kind of PvP as end game, because you can (usually) play it while you finish the "main" game. I suppose if I bothered with PvP, it would be the max level only raids that don't advance the story.
A key here is that "End Game" content can be both endless (horde modes), or finite (Inferno).
Question 2)
To me, the only games that NEEDS "End Game" are the games that are getting on going profit from me without directly backing it up. Just because I don't like the idea of letting anyone profit of me without me getting compensated to some extent.
The subs genre is the most obvious, because I don't believe in paying monthly of server access for a single, static, game. In less the server access is balls to the walls awesome, it should really be doing something to compensate me, cause I already probably sunk $60 into the game.
Any game that wants to use overt ads should also probably have something to compensate me. If they're making money selling my eyeballs to companies, I should get that back somehow, whether it's a cheaper game or free content. Possibly I'd be okay with it if the ads are REALLY well integrated, like a NASCAR/Formula 1 racing game where they sold ads on the cars. As long as it didn't slow down the game, I think I'd be okay as it makes it look more like real life). But if it's like Sony's latest patent that involves interrupting games for a commercial, or the really poorly done ad integration like Deus Ex: HR had last year, then they profited off me and took my time. I should get something in return for that.
If it's F2P, it doesn't need it (cause I'm getting the game for free. I haven't given the company money yet, so I can't demand anything from them), but it should probably have it to keep people playing, give me a reason to pay them (awesome skins, newest maps, etc).
As you can probably see, my idea of End Game is to compensate on going profit, where the end game is what I'm paying for. I don't include D3 in this, because I have only paid $60, and the RMAH fee Blizzard gets is for the service of allowing people to make money from a virtual item/circumvent the item grind.
TL;DR:
1) I aim to facilitate end game discussion by clearing up what is end game to you, and when does a game need it.
2) Please Vote. If you don't see an option you want, please ask, I'll try and put it up.
3) Personal Opinion - End game is anything that most people will not complete (like Inferno), that is done after the "game" (post lvl 60 in D3, post lvl 80ish in D2, etc).
4) Personal Opinion - such end game is only mandatory when the company expects me to continue paying them for the end game content.
5) Personal Opinion - The RMAH does not constituent payment with the expectation of ongoing new content, as the payment is for someone else's virtual item, and Blizzard's fee is for the service of allowing me to buy said item, or profit from playing a video game. If the RMAH where me buying directly from Blizzard (as in, they were selling items that weren't a drop for a player), then this would not be true.