- LordRayken
- Registered User
-
Member for 17 years, 1 month, and 19 days
Last active Thu, Aug, 23 2012 19:04:54
- 0 Followers
- 536 Total Posts
- 22 Thanks
-
Aug 17, 2009LordRayken posted a message on Blizzard's Three New Twitter Contests Are Live!We should all work together to come up with badass names for those items so we all win no matter what.Posted in: News
-
Jul 29, 2009LordRayken posted a message on Traditional Weapon-Character Relation MaintainedOh heres a good fucking idea, Blizzard.Posted in: News
How about spend your time DEVELOPING EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the game anyone could ever want, rather than going...
"LOLZ WE'RE LAZY SO IF WE DEVELOP CLASSES USING EVERY WEAPON IT'D CUT INTO OTHER FEATURES."
Uhhh... WHY.
Dont you have the resources to do WHATEVER you want and take as long as you want?
All I can see is a Diablo 3 less like the previous Diablo's and more like World of Warcraft and Activision. This is complete crap.
Edit:
Bashiok's conversation translated -
"We're taking out more stuff in Diablo 3 that made Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 great." -
Apr 17, 2009LordRayken posted a message on Diablo 3 Difficulty LevelsCorrect me if I'm wrong, as its been a few years since I've played... But...Posted in: News
I remember blasting away and even killing cold immune monsters, it just took longer... So... -
Apr 16, 2009LordRayken posted a message on Diablo 3 Difficulty LevelsTouche with the fire mage bit... However...Posted in: News
As a ice sorc, before patch 1.10, I played avidly. She had full tal'rashas and some other stuff I cant remember now and she was level 88...
In hell difficulty, with the freezing orb, I never had any problems. -
Apr 16, 2009LordRayken posted a message on Diablo 3 Difficulty LevelsPosted in: NewsQuote from "Daemaro" »Undergeared not really, low level I guess that depends on how you view it.
I'd play through on solo and by the time I reached Hell there was at least one occurrence like that.
To me I think you should be able to make a solid play through on single player in order for it to be balanced. Sure there will be some parts you may die 8+ times or more attempting but it shouldn't be to where I have to get rid of the monster by reloading the game to get through.
Of course that's my opinion though.
But I mean, a lot of single player roleplaying games have all kinds of challenging elements, whereas Diablo doesnt and cant as a hack n' slash.
I really dont think most of you are sitting down and looking at the fact the only real difficulty in Diablo were the enemies. Its not like you had to deal with horrible difficulty in every part of the entire acts. It was just, on occasion, some mobs would be too hard to take down, and, with that, an instant remedy - to level - was given. I don't think that really merits saying Diablo 2's difficulty system was messed up, or monsters shouldnt be immune. I do agree there can be other systems rather than just pure immunity, but, I mean, difficulty isnt supposed to change gameplay... Its just making the monsters "harder" by adding more layers on defense/protection onto them. If you stray too far, you end up having a different game with each difficulty. -
Apr 16, 2009LordRayken posted a message on Diablo 3 Difficulty LevelsPosted in: NewsQuote from "Daemaro" »For me it simply comes down to should I have to close and remake a game in order to bypass a imbalance? No, I don't think I should have to. I'm all for challenging but when it interrupts gameplay to where I have to essentially CHEAT to get around it then I think it crosses the line.
I don't ever actually recall having to do just that unless I was like, undergeared or too low level to be there really in the first place though. -
Apr 16, 2009LordRayken posted a message on Diablo 3 Difficulty LevelsEvery difficulty was the same exact stuff, just even harder... How are they supposed to increase difficulty without putting more immunities and whatnot on monsters? Without that, it'd be very plain to just go from normal to hell difficulty with the monsters a bit stronger and nothing else.Posted in: News
What did you guys expect, though? It is "HELL" Difficulty. If the game isnt giving you "HELL" when you play it, then its a poor title for a difficulty... Lots of hell in Diablo, eh?
Also, about how difficult all the immune monsters were... You dont have to play on the Hell difficulty to get the full game, really. So I don't think that is a valid point.
The game of Diablo and Diablo 2 are entirely about gaining levels. And via those levels, your character becomes much stronger to combat the burning legions. Without a higher level character, I'm sure Hell difficulty will always remain a "pain" in the ass... Or... A Hell in the ass? -
Apr 16, 2009LordRayken posted a message on Diablo 3 Difficulty LevelsWith the way you guys whine about everything in Diablo 2 that made Diablo 2 the game it is... I'm amazed you are even on a Diablofans website.Posted in: News
Every difficulty was the same exact stuff, just even harder... Tell me, how the hell are they supposed to increase difficulty without putting more immunities and whatnot on monsters? Then it'd REALLY be plain to just go from normal to hell difficulty with the monsters a bit stronger and nothing else.
What did you guys expect? A walk through the park? It's HELL Difficulty. If the game isnt giving you HELL when you play it, then its a poor title for a difficulty.
For everyone -bitching- about how "Difficult" all your immune monsters were... You dont HAVE to play Hell difficulty. I swear to god, I am the only one in this whole thread so far who actually liked what they did with the difficulty and hasnt outright whined and bitched about it.
Edit: Survivability rate? It's called gaining levels. That gives you your survivability. I mean, I think I read someone complaining that the Iron Maiden curse made him have to take Hell in Hell difficulty one step at a time... My god? What the hell? That's supposed to be a bad thing? "It was the hardest difficulty in the game and the curses made me have to take my time to beat it!" -
Apr 16, 2009LordRayken posted a message on Diablo 3 Difficulty LevelsLoved the difficulty.Posted in: News
It all felt extraordinarly powered to the right angles. Normal was simple, most of the time, but still took a lot once you got into further acts.
Nightmare really ramped it up. You truly felt like the monsters were powerhouses and you were struggling.
Then, in Hell, literally, it was all or nothing. Death was right around the corner constantly, and you were struggling in constant battle even with just one or two enemies. I especially loved Hell difficulty in the chaos sanctuary, it was always heads or tails. Crazy battle, massive damage.
Then you got tons of good gear, and higher levels, and it was hard to imagine playing on any difficulty except Hell... Then you'd get hit with Iron Maiden, and my Barb would dish out 4k damage or more and kill himself...
Edit:
I think the Diablo 2 balance worked perfectly, as did Diablo 1's. IF they make Diablo 3 differ, it wont be the same series in my opinion. I don't care if some of Diablo 2's difficulty came from bugs, I loved it. -
Apr 2, 2009LordRayken posted a message on New Diablo 3 Character Class Announced: The Archivist!Yes, but, these jokes were still too obvious.Posted in: News
And yeah, it would be hilarious if Blizzard announced something real in among all the fake stuff. Or just plainly announced something real. -
Apr 1, 2009LordRayken posted a message on New Diablo 3 Character Class Announced: The Archivist!Moreover, with Blizzard's past and it's present, why in the world would anyone think this many things announced on April 1st would be real? I don't understand why people would think three major things would be announced on the same day, let alone April First, and it be real.Posted in: News
To avoid any confusion, I'd think if Blizzard was actually going to release info, it would be April 2nd, if they HAD to do it at the start of April. -
Apr 1, 2009LordRayken posted a message on New Diablo 3 Character Class Announced: The Archivist!The name itself is pretty cool, "The Archivist". I could see the Archivist from DnD kind of making a statement here.Posted in: News
Basically, The Archivist in Dungeons and Dragons could learn any spells he wanted, be it Divine, Nature, or Arcane, and he could cast them whenever. The Archivist was as frail as a wizard, but he was a lot more intelligent and crazed. He could do more than a Wizard could with spells, also. -
Apr 1, 2009LordRayken posted a message on New Diablo 3 Character Class Announced: The Archivist!Quite the contrary for me...Posted in: News
It seems like this year, all the April fools jokes were poorly thought out and rather stupid. They seemed like immature things four or five year olds would think up, and not actual legitamate attempts at foolery. Most of Blizzard's past stuff rang true on April Fools, but was just too iffy to be real.
The BlackThorne online thing is just ridiculous, the Terra-tron just makes me angry like "Yeah, now I know why Starcraft 2 isnt out yet. They waste their time making stupid ass jokes with the in-game engine rather than finishing it" and the Archivist -seemed- real, until you read the backstory and even watch the videos. They also stole the "Shush" animation from the "Wail of the Banshee" spell from Baldur's gate, I forgot if it was 1 or 2 though. I did actually smirk at the fact they portrayed him as some book studier with absolutely no health though who was able to do some crazy things and then just die in half a hit and look pathetic... Obviously a joke, it was still kind of funny.
Overall, I may be negative, but I just thought the april fool's jokes were incredibly bland, unfunny, unimaginative, and stupid. Also, if you noticed, I didn't touch the WoW dance pad one. That's because that was so abhorrently fake and stupid I couldnt even really read about it or look at the screenshots. It wasn't funny -at all-, especially the "So you think you can /dance?"... That made me cringe. -
Mar 29, 2009LordRayken posted a message on NEW Unannounced Blizzard GameExcept for... Well, actual life...Posted in: News
But, anyways, I cannot find the link for the quote from one of Blizzard's employee's saying its not a current IP...
Did anyone else hear what I heard about the fact they said it wont be a current IP, or can anyone else find what I'm talking about? I know I'm not crazy. -
Mar 29, 2009LordRayken posted a message on NEW Unannounced Blizzard GameI was almost certain someone confirmed the next-gen MMO is a not any of Blizzard's current IP's... I wish I could find a source.Posted in: News
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1
Jay Wilson did not write an apology to Brevik, directly, in a sophisticated way. All he did here was post a large damage control reminiscent post about how he's sorry to the community for the things he said. This comes off as Public Relations. At the company I work for, we call this a bait and switch tactic, where we scapegoat the true issue by distracting the audience with other things. Which is exactly what was done here.
The community spreads what you say around, but we are not the ones who need an apology, unless you feel we are all "losers," as the term I heard in High School/Middle School was used.You cannot in one forum say what you said, while in another saying the exact opposite...
"$#@% that loser"
"Dave is awesome"
Is a non-sequitur and if you truly believed Dave is an awesome person, you would not have said what you posted in the first place.Brevik is the man who needs an apology.
To be entirely blunt, a face to face apology. You do not get to hide behind a screen and make such asinine, immature comments to people on the internet who are responsible for the very legacy you created a sequel to.You owe your career at this point, and for the last 5 or 6 years of your life, to Dave Brevik and the people who worked at Blizzard North.
Do not apologize to us. Apologize to Brevik.
And for everyone saying "Who gives a shit," well, your game is suffering because of the incompetence of the game designer. This is just one aspect of his immaturity that proves he was never up to the task.
0
I can be stupid too, but I refuse to.
Oh well, I'll try.
What if I told you.
That Diablo 2 and Lord of Destruction are over 10 years old.
And Diablo 3 had 10 years to learn from previous mistakes as they told us they did 100 times. And they didn't. And they made a worse game than Diablo 2 at launch and it's over 10 years old and was released in 2000.
What if I told you the game was developed for 5 years and its worse than Diablo 2 was before Lord of Destruction.
What if I told you the game cannot be patched or fixed because it is fundamentally broken, and it is FUNDAMENTALLY not the same game as Diablo 2 was.
What if I also told you, that when you make a mistake, you don't repeat it. If Diablo 2 was bad at launch, that means Diablo 3 should have been amazing at launch.
But no. No logic with Drones.
0
What a joke.
And people say I'm the conspiracy theorist without any logic or proof.
I suppose this is the state of the "Diablofans" website when the only game they have to be a fan of failed miserably in ways even the game developers acknowledge and understand full well.
Diablo 3 is fundamentally flawed. They cannot fix it and nothing they do will give it a "Lord of Destruction."
0
The business world is not conspiracy and anyone can see Diablo 3 was created as a secondary product behind World of Warcraft.
To anyone who claims the WoW annual pass was put into place to get people interested in a game with a much smaller fanbase;
The annual pass gained them 1 million Diablo 3 players. It sold 6 million copies (with a large part of that number refunded quickly after launch). It's quite clear the Annual Pass was created as a way to pad subscription numbers by utilizing Diablo 3.
There is no conspiracy here. Financial success does not mean game success.
A little math:
Around a year of 2 and a half million subscriptions to WoW will garner Blizzard more money than all of the sales of Diablo 3.
0
Actually death is not in the eyes of the beholder in a game that still has 9.1 million subs and would have closer to 8.1 if it wasn't for the annual pass gimmick.
0
3
Blizzard used to have one team. That team would work on a game, then cycle through to the next game and work on it, then cycle through to the next game and work on it. It was often cited that they'd finish a game in one universe, and move on with their resources to the next.
Then World of Warcraft launched in 2004 and had amazing success from the get go. And continued growing, and expanding. This quickly put development of Diablo and Starcraft in the background.
Then Blizzard North left around 2005, officially.
And then Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 took an additional 5 or 7 years to be released, whereas previously, the games were being released every 2-4 years in the franchises.
I believe that when Blizzard North left, and World of Warcraft began its rise to success, Diablo was entirely and effectively dead. Blizzard had their cash cow set in a fantasy universe, and it was not Diablo.
WoW went on to garner over 12 million subscribers, all the while we had seen or heard no word about Diablo 3. Until the time was right.
When Diablo 3 was announced in 2008, it was a period of prosperity for Blizzard, but the unusually long development time left many fans, including myself, mystified as to how it could be taking 8 years to develop a sequel to a game that was released in 2000 when its original game was released in 1997.
I believe, and you can debate this all you want, that Diablo 3 was announced as a way to control World of Warcraft when the time was needed.
Cataclysm was the time Diablo 3 was needed.
Cataclysm saw World of Warcrafts most overall subscription drop, and many players left the game, totally unsatisfied with the content of the expansion. The time was now or never to create a plan to keep World of Warcraft filled with its players, and the way to do that was to release something that offered their marketing tool, Diablo 3, for free.
Enter the World of Warcraft annual pass. The only business decision in history to completely give away a triple A title game for free, just for staying subscribed to World of Warcraft. Entirely belittling the 10 years many fans spent patiently awaiting Diablo 3's release. They were simply /giving it away for free/ if you continued to play World of Warcraft. And that's what Diablo 3 had become. A worthless marketing tool to keep World of Warcraft afloat.
Diablo 3 was released as barely a shell of a game and it was dead within a month, effectively, dead. Broken game design, poor mechanical choices, unsatisfying runes, awful story and poorly acted voice dialogue drove this game 6 feet under before the players could even smell the feces of the shit they were playing.
And why was this?
Because Diablo 3 was turned into a tool. A tool to keep World of Warcraft's integrity afloat during the most crisis the games faced since its launch in 2004. World of Warcraft is Blizzard's cash cow. It funds the entire company and the only thing the company wants to do at this point is make more money.
Those over 1 million subscribers to the annual pass could have, and very well might have, canceled their subscription during the year absence of additional content after Dragon Soul. But the promise of getting Diablo 3 entirely free kept over 1 million people subscribed to WoW, and it worked.
World of Warcraft lost over 1.1 million subscribers. That could have easily been 2 million. That would've been the most impact on subscriptions World of Warcraft has ever faced, and for a titan as large as WoW, for the gaming industry and media to see that it had lost over 2 million subscriptions would be the biggest loss of profit and largest hit to their reputation in the history of their company. It would've far outweighed anything that could come of Diablo 3. Or so they thought.
So what did they do to prevent such a hemorrhage of subs? They released Diablo 3 during the crisis period of Cataclysm, and roped in over a million annual pass holders to pad the subscription loss numbers. And they still lost over a million.
We got a sub-par broken game because Blizzard only cares about their World of Warcraft franchise.
StarCraft 2 was poorly accepted and many players did not want to move over from 1 to 2 because of its poor mechanical choices, and its watered down gameplay as well.
And why did all of this happen?
Because Starcraft and Diablo are ancillary products. Created only to form around World of Warcraft.
I was with this site since 2007. I had a hard time accepting Diablo 3 for what it was. Absolute shit. And now that I've finally accepted it, and I'm no longer in denial, I can safely say that Diablo was torn to pieces as a marketing tool.
Goodbye, Diablo.
0
I was going to say, I can't go anywhere in Inferno right now. I get slaughtered.
0
I got into Inferno tonight, and realized how artificial the difficulty is. It's ass-raping hard and it's only because the enemies have a load combination of ridiculously unfair, impossible to survive without top tier gear abilities that I can't even kite successfully.
I can handle any of the bosses on Hell difficulty just fine, but a few elites in Inferno tear me to shreds.
I'm one of the biggest Blizzard Fanboys out there, too, but I can't enjoy the game on Inferno and it was tough to enjoy on Hell.
0
I said I doubt they will be as limited as people think, then I said I was able to find past collectors editions in stores a week or two after the rush.
You told me you hope that wont happen, because you pre-ordered 3 and want to resell them for higher prices.
I said a lot of stores sold out instantly, and I'm sad you took some gamers pre-orders away.
Then someone starts telling me that stores didn't sell out instantly... Which was my original point. A lot of stores still have editions available, and even if they are "limited" you will likely still be able to find plenty.
This is a classic example of a Straw man argument from you.
It doesn't say anything about the number of copies. I'm not trolling.
0
The point was the intent of buying 3 copies?
You know, the part where she said "I hope they are limited so I can sell mine for more money."
And you just showed they aren't limited because you can still pre-order on a website. So you backed up my initial argument.
Running in circles how? By proving my initial point in saying I doubt the Collectors Editions will be very limited?
Which you responded to by saying, "I sure hope not, I want to make money!"
So, the only people in circles here are you and Shadowslains, it would appear.
0
Good.
Thanks for proving my initial point.
Which was that they'd be abundantly available and not very limited and that poster that pre-ordered 3 copies hoping to resell for BIG $$$ was just foolish.
0
Haha, I have no idea. I was just stating what I've observed in the past.
0
I'm not really riding a moral high horse.
It just struck me as odd you're on a fansite hoping that the Collectors Editions are limited so you can make money off of other people who want one.
Uhhh, nah, Amazon sold out insanely fast and they've been sold out and have only very rarely as far as I've heard reopened pre-orders. And as soon as they did they were sold out again.
0
Aside from the fact pre-orders sold out instantly and a lot of the people who pre-ordered just did it so they can charge you more for your copy.