Diablo
Diablo II
Jay Wilson wouldn't even have a job right now if it weren't for the above ^^
This is a discussion about professionalism, not titles associated with their name.
Bad job trying to turn the topic elsewhere.
-
- snared04drummer
- Registered User
-
Member for 13 years and 4 days
Last active Fri, Nov, 9 2012 15:33:24
- 3 Followers
- 465 Total Posts
- 43 Thanks
-
Aug 23, 2012
snared04drummer posted a message on A Message From JayPosted in: NewsQuote from frozenmildew
Quote from flikera
After saying those words to Dave, the man who brought us our passion, you will never be widely accepted, Jay. Your PR excuses cannot hide your aggressive hateful nature.
oh shut up.. while what brevik said sounded professional, it was a HUGE insult to the entire team.
jays response was no doubt unprofessional.. but heres an idea, you go put your heart and soul into something that means the world to you for 4 years, then when it's not doing so hot some other guy basically says your team is incompetent and didn't have a chance because all the talent left..
see how you react.
god people are retarded.
what he said was unprofessional, but was human, and he apologized as he should have.
water under the bridge, grow up.
For someone who is very bad at reading between the lines, you're sure insisting that others do it so well.
1. Dave was ASKED how he felt. And if you watched the interview at all you should be able to tell that the interviewer was trying VERY hard to get him to be a lot nastier. So yes, Dave was honest and yet professional, no other way to see that.
2. Jay reacted like a small child. Not exactly the type of personality that should be in his position in the first place. Human or not, when you're the game director of a franchise as popular as Diablo, working for a company as prolific as Blizzard, you should have a better temperament than that, or be smarter, but probably both.
3. His "heartfelt" "apology" was, I can guarantee you, a direct result of Mike Morhaime, or some other Blizzard higher-up, dragging Jay's ass into his office and saying "Look dude, you fucked up, go fix this and save some face", which he then tried to do. I.e. he only said those things because it's now plastered all over the internet.
Conclusion: David Brevik - 1 Jay Wilson - 0
You grow up. -
Aug 23, 2012
snared04drummer posted a message on A Message From Jay"Nice" has nothing to do with it. This was one of the most startlingly unprofessional moments from someone in a position like his in the history of corporate business. Did Bill Gates show up at Steve Jobs funeral and say "Fuck that loser." No, I don't think so. Jay is either an outright asshole, or just that stupid. He has a history of flagrantly bad PR decisions, and this just highlights that in a very public, very embarrassing way. Sorry, but you can't shoot off your mouth like that when you're the Game Director at the most successful video game software company to date. No excuses.Posted in: News
-
Jan 10, 2012
snared04drummer posted a message on No Release Date Yet, Beta Key Contest Round 3, More On Consoles, Explosive Blast RunedAny else even care any more?Posted in: News
I honestly don't want to hear another word from anyone at Blizzard, no more wallpapers or other shit, until they set a release date. -
Jun 11, 2011
snared04drummer posted a message on Item Progression and the CubeOnly changing six times per difficulty? Only?Posted in: News
Lol, that's a lot. Titan Quest felt like a constant change, and it only changed 3-4 times per difficulty. Diablo II's looks were so few that I'm not sure how we could possibly call 18 different armor visual tiers (And probably much more than that with sets and what not at level cap) "only six times per difficulty". This all, of course, stacked on top of the fact that in Diablo II all the different qualities of armor (i.e. elite and exceptional) had exactly the same look as the normal tier, and that the actual variation of look on your character didn't even vary that much with uniques and sets.
Unless, that is, we're foolishly trying to compare the degree of itemization (in visual terms) to that of WoW. Let's remember that those two things are hard to compare visually, because the skins and models of armor in WoW are so invariably simple, compared to the full 3d effects of armor in Diablo III. -
Jun 9, 2011
snared04drummer posted a message on Diablo III's Collector's EditionI never buy CE anything, but if I were it would be for the soundtrack (if it was good) or in-game items.Posted in: News
-
May 9, 2011
snared04drummer posted a message on May 9th Conference CallPosted in: NewsQuote from Kiserai
That's fair enough I think.
What's hard is that it's essentially impossible to find middle ground here; either people are seen as fanboys who think Blizzard can do no wrong and accept anything they're told without any skepticism, or as overly skeptical Blizz-haters that think Blizzard will never do anything right by the players, will always be months/years late, etc. I've obviously been open to being accused of falling into the former camp, and I realize I've been guilty tonight of leveling the latter accusation at you and others. Neither is fair.
All I'm really ever getting at here is that the people who really know what's going on with D3, as best as anyone really does (i.e., anything can happen, something game-breaking appears last minute and they have to postpone, or internal testing goings unbelievably well and we see beta ahead of schedule, etc.) are still saying they think can do this timetable. I think it's unreasonable to think they'd set even a caveat-laden goal this prominently if they didn't think they had a better-than-not chance of hitting it (i.e., 51%+, even slightly better than even odds).
Blizzard has had one sketchy history, we all know that. But I think we're seeing a new era of sorts, and SC2 was pretty pristine as far as living up to their timetable. D3 is a different beast (literally!) but I still believe it bodes well. They've been hyper cautious, as always, at every turn, so now that they've given us even this admittedly preliminary 'date', I'm confident.
/steps off the soapbox
Thank you, and /agree.
The only people who have any real inside knowledge of actual dates of releases have said: Q3 beta, 2011 release, just as you said. That being not only the BEST but the ONLY real non-speculation knowledge we have, I think that, Blizzard's history of timetable jumping aside, at this point (especially given the way the SC2 release went) we have no real reason to doubt those words. -
May 9, 2011
snared04drummer posted a message on May 9th Conference CallPosted in: NewsQuote from Gheed2010
No, it is an announcement of intent to begin a beta at a period in the future, with caveats.
When Sams or Morhaime, or Wilson, or whoever tells the screaming fans "The beta starts next week!" at the closing ceremony of b'con, that will be a "beta announcement".
The difference really isn't that subtle.
Not really sure where you guys are getting this "beta announcement will not happen until Blizzcon"
That's perhaps the most unsubstantiated guesstimate of all. Neither the SC2 nor the Cata betas were announced/begun at a Blizzcon even. Both of those happened in the middle of the year, and the latter for a much larger release.
The beta will happen when it happens, let's leave the date to Blizzard. -
May 9, 2011
snared04drummer posted a message on May 9th Conference CallPosted in: NewsQuote from Dolaiim
Quote from snared04drummer
I fully believe there will be external testing starting sometime in July, and that we will, in all probability, see this game around Christmas time.
Here we go again, not hours from this latest bit of "news." Assuming Beta will start in July, assuming seeing the game around Christmas time "in all probability."
What probability is it you're basing this on? Even while the conf call was still going on, Bashiok was quick to point out that this was a rough estimate, depending on how development goes.
Quote from ScyberDragon
Mike Morhaime:
Official Blizzard Quote:
We are still pushing for a 2011 release
nuff said
Nuff said? Really? Wait so during a conference call they didn't drop a bomb by saying that 2011 is now unlikely, even though everyone knows that? You can take that as confirmation of a 2011 release, but we all know they purposefully said nothing. D3 got 3 bullets and 0 questions, a total of not more than 1 minute in the call.
Let me say this as clearly as I can: That was not a Beta announcement. That was an announcement that Alpha has started, and the game is "looking good." They gave a 3 month margin of error for Beta start, and even THAT is subject to the bombshell caveat "unless things change." It was barely even a timetable.
I'm not saying this as a QQ gamer with no life. I'm saying this as an investor and a professional software engineer.
Yeah.. you're one of the ones I'm talking about. You put a negative spin on everything said and act like everyone who would like to view it positively is an unrealistic idiot.
Q1 SC2 beta announced
Q2 SC2 beta happened
Q3 SC2 released
nuff said? It can happen. Don't run around foretelling things that haven't happened yet. You're not actually solving or saying anything substantial. -
May 9, 2011
snared04drummer posted a message on May 9th Conference CallAnd on top of that, I might add that, with the exception of the "we're shooting for release this year" from a quote earlier this year, there has never been a tangible date named for ANYTHING concerning Diablo III, period. So when they start throwing around actual dates, I find they're pretty much ready to go.Posted in: News
-
May 9, 2011
snared04drummer posted a message on May 9th Conference CallPosted in: NewsQuote from Kiserai
Snared nailed it in my opinion. I think the final stretch is finally in view and I think it's time to take the risk of getting excited & investing in the idea of the timetable Blizz has put forth. Yeah, maybe we'll get burned again, but I'd rather get my hopes up and really enjoy the momentum of the next few months and deal with the frustration later than sit around and humbug every time Blizz even hints that a 2011 release is coming. As of (literally) this afternoon, Blizzard doesn't anticipate having to move the date into 2012, and we shouldn't either. History be damned, this is a new Blizzard & a new Diablo. They didn't disappoint with SC2's timetable, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here.
Exactly, thank you. This was pretty much deja vu for the Q1 call last year concerning Starcraft 2. He said it was coming at within the next 1-2 months of that call, it did, and about six months later we had Starcraft 2. Now here comes along the EXACT same message, and half of you in here are almost wishing that it gets pushed back to 2012.
The man said "we are still shooting for 2011". Optimism is fun, or so I hear. -
May 9, 2011
snared04drummer posted a message on May 9th Conference CallHaving started with Diablo I over a decade ago, I have waited just as long as most people in here, and understand the frustration. However, I'm getting a little annoyed at the naysayers to this announcement. I know just as well as all of you that Blizzard makes its own timetables for things like this, but this, in my mind, is a pretty positive, tangible thing to put our hands and minds on for a change.Posted in: News
I fully believe there will be external testing starting sometime in July, and that we will, in all probability, see this game around Christmas time. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
0
Diablo II
Jay Wilson wouldn't even have a job right now if it weren't for the above ^^
This is a discussion about professionalism, not titles associated with their name.
Bad job trying to turn the topic elsewhere.
0
For someone who is very bad at reading between the lines, you're sure insisting that others do it so well.
1. Dave was ASKED how he felt. And if you watched the interview at all you should be able to tell that the interviewer was trying VERY hard to get him to be a lot nastier. So yes, Dave was honest and yet professional, no other way to see that.
2. Jay reacted like a small child. Not exactly the type of personality that should be in his position in the first place. Human or not, when you're the game director of a franchise as popular as Diablo, working for a company as prolific as Blizzard, you should have a better temperament than that, or be smarter, but probably both.
3. His "heartfelt" "apology" was, I can guarantee you, a direct result of Mike Morhaime, or some other Blizzard higher-up, dragging Jay's ass into his office and saying "Look dude, you fucked up, go fix this and save some face", which he then tried to do. I.e. he only said those things because it's now plastered all over the internet.
Conclusion: David Brevik - 1 Jay Wilson - 0
You grow up.
0
0
We usually run 4-6 hours a night together, starting at 7-8CST. PM me if interested, we are very laid back, but are good about sharing gear and planning ahead as a group (i.e. don't wipe often).
0
0
0
I'd also recommend taking just about any other multishot rune. Discipline isn't all that necessary when your two Discipline skills are so low cost and situational. Fire at Will or Full Broadside would be much better runes in my opinion.
P.S. whoever said Blizzard has been quoted as saying it's easier to solo Inferno is full of it. They said VERY recently that it was slightly easier in a group play.
0
0
0
2. The trailer was awesome.
0
I was responding to the general thread, and including a response to what you said as well, but thanks for making a poor attempt at flaming me to invalidate what I said.
Nevertheless,
Hell was hard. Sorry, but if you think it isn't then you've never played the game. Hell in 1.0 Classic wasn't that bad, but when they basically re-rolled the entire difficulty in 1.09~, etc by adding a ton of monster defense and Immunities, it became hard, period. If you're the kind of player that has only ever experienced it by getting rushed through the game and throwing on godly items then you have no real perspective on what I'm talking about, and if you aren't, but still insist that it's easy, then I'm fairly convinced you don't know what you're talking about in general. The fact is, that a normal character who hits hell in a timely manner and with non-godly-inherited items will have their asses handed to them by even the most normal of hell mobs. They hit hard. They're hard to hit as a melee character, etc. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
As to your insistence that the Diablo III skill system isn't any better: you've either not played both games, not played Diablo III at all, or are just a bad judge of game mechanics because even the most inexperienced of gamers should pretty quickly realize that Diablo III's is pretty superior is just about every conceivable way. That they are both "linear" is not the point, nor was it ever the point.
1. Diablo III has working resource systems that support their respective skill sets.
2. Diablo II requires you to invest 20 points, therefore levels, to make a skill viable. So a fifth of your character's time in the game revolves around one skill.
Sorry, but that's pretty clear cut. And the fact that you were required to make your way through other skills via permanent skill point allocation further reinforces that conclusion.
As to skill builds, I can see how they'll work based on beta play. Is it the whole picture? No. But have I seen any glaring issues like ones that persisted in Diablo II for literally years without being fixed? No. That tells me that logically, with as many choices as we have in skills in runes, there will be exponentially more viable builds in Diablo III than in Diablo II, yet another bullet point for why the skill system is superior.
Oh and btw, well-formed arguments =/= rambling just because they show you you're wrong.
0
I can see that. I think a good game is pretty fun for ~95% of its players, and hard to master for ~90% of them. I think some of the predictions on these forums that only 1% of people will make it through inferno is a serious miscalculation. If that were even close to true I'd say the game was too hard. But on the other hand, if 100% of everyone who plays it is a master at it it's obviously balanced too far in the other direction.
I think our best conclusion at this point is to take Blizzard at their word:
Everyone, even new-to-RPGers will find Normal only moderately challenging. The real challenge starts at nightmare, where it gets ramped up considerably. Hell will then be yet another new horizon of hardness, and Inferno will challenge even the best. Obviously people who put a lot of time into video games and/or have considerable experience with this genre in particular or are part of a good group will probably have less trouble than those who aren't and don't. If all of that happens, then I'll say it's a pretty well made and balanced game as far as difficulty and learning curve.
0
Why won't you see a WW barbarian? You can't even tangibly debate that yet as we haven't had the skill in our hands as of yet. The skill looks plenty viable to me, however. But if you're suggesting that someone won't be able to use just a single skill, then you're both right, and disproving your own point. In fact, if the game is designed correctly, you shouldn't be able to just use one skill. That's the beauty of having a couple dozen skills that work for each class, we don't have to be one-hit wonders like in Diablo II.
Diablo III's skill system >>>>>>>>>>>> Diablo II's skill system.
How is Diablo III not superior? In every way? The skill system and proper design of resource systems alone is enough for me to say that it's light-years beyond. Nostalgia is not a factor here, the fact is that this game is better designed. Diablo II is a great game, and was ground-breaking... ten years ago. But it has also always been in a constant state of broken. From one patch to the next entire builds became unviable or just outright broken. In almost every major patch, I can think of at least one popular build that was based around things being bugged, such as the Iron Maiden Blood Golem Necro that ruled D2 Classic for quite a while.
Runewords? Omg no. Don't even go there. Engima pretty much ruined the game. They NEVER intended for every class to teleport through content. Ever. The godly 1.1 runewords were pretty much implemented to counteract how ridiculously hard they had made hell, so in one sense of the word they were "necessary". Overall though, they should have just found better ways to balance the harder difficulties. But if you really think about it, runewords are still just an extension of item customization and in that way, they can easily be replaced by a larger pool of better-designed items, which I believe we'll have.
As to committing to a build, permanence does not equal value. They've said multiple times that they agree with that, and don't find anything to be added simply by making someone remake a character if they make a mistake. I agree.
2
Really?
This horribly formed, ill-conceived argument... again?
"Customization" in Diablo II is a lie. Period.
When it came to stats you either did it the right way, i.e. enough str/dex to wear gear and the rest into vitality, or your character sucked. Having a choice between doing it one way or sucking is not really customization.
As for skills, so many were broken or pointless that there was only a handle of builds for each class. No one pumped lower level skills except as synergies, and anything worth taking was worth putting 20 points into 99% of the time, so skill points were fairly trivial as well. Almost every viable spec in Diablo II was based around 1 or 2 skills, so for all those dozens of skills spread out over three skill trees you used... one. Maybe two. Plus whatever was needed to get to them.
Enter Diablo III, where each class has 25~ viable skills, X5 skill runes for each, and six slots to put them in. That's a few billion possible combinations for each class without even talking about the 13~ passives for each class that will be quite game changing. But with a few billion ways to do it decently and conceivably thousands of way to do it really well, we're already talking about more customization than Diablo II ever dreamed of.
And did I mention that all of Diablo III's skills will work, and have working resource systems that are class appropriate to back them up?
Now enter in Diablo III's item pool. I'm betting it will be larger than Diablo II's anyway, but as we've already seen, the real defining factor here is that even the level 60 legendaries in Diablo III have randomized stats on them. Not randomized within a pre-existing selection of stats like the Diablo II items, but mod pools that will actually make two of the same legendary items essentially different items. Most customization in Diablo II was gleaned from the item selection, period. Enigma changed the game forever, entire specs were designed around it, etc. So instead of people determining the value of nice items in an asinine way like the defense on a Shako (aka Harlequin Crest), we'll actually be seeing trades done based on relevant things, and more importantly, we'll have a ton of customization options based on the randomized items we're finding. Not that there won't be tons of reason to stick to items that drastically increase our current character's primary attribute, but there will be tons of other things to consider as well.
I could expand on the consideration you posed as well as my answer, but since I've already fought and won this battle, I'll simply refer you to my blog post about it that was taken off the D3 forums:
http://www.diablofans.com/blog/181/entry-603-my-answer-to-diablo-vets-who-hate-diablo-iii/
0