Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NW_Kohaku]

Spoiler: Continuation of derail (click to show/hide)

Before any strategy I have will ever matter, I have to get at least close to as fast as the other players in punching out routine commands for getting the whole system running, or my strategy doesn't matter because I'm going to be moused.

I can't help thinking this is like saying "I can't play games on a console because I don't know how to use a controller".

---

And, again, I'm not saying SC2 isn't a macro game - it definitely is. But I'd be careful of tossing aside an entire genre when you don't necessarily appreciate the mechanisms of play.

Actually, yes, this is the exact reason not to play a genre. 

I know people who refuse to play the classic styles of RPGs because they find them boring and easy.  And the reason they find them boring and easy is because those old-style JRPGs were specifically designed to be repetitive but easy to advance through without putting much thought into them.  They were meant to be played without having to be at the top of your game, where simply applying any effort at all over time will guarantee advancement. 

That's because the mechanics of a genre are specifically geared towards rewarding players in different ways.

What I keep saying, and what some people apparently have quite a bit of difficulty grasping is that not everyone likes playing every genre of game because they don't play games for the same core gameplay enjoyment. 

Let me be clear, here: I. DO. NOT. LIKE. RTS. GAMES.

I don't give a damn about how much you might enjoy it or how much you might think that maybe having the chance to have something approaching something I might find fun after I've spent hundreds of hours in painful drudgery turning keypunching into reflex might be fun for you, but it's sure not fun for me.

Saying "I won't play RTS games because I don't like RTS games" is the only rational response. 

And why should I bother to learn the terminology of a genre I don't like? Do you spend time learning pointlessly exact strategies in games you never play?  I never declared "I won't play consoles because I can't figure out the controller", instead, I declared "This console has no games I like, so there's no point bothering to buy the console."  It would be stupidity to make any other statement.

Stop assuming everyone has to play the games you like just because you like them.

[Thief^]

I was watching someone play Diablo III.
Does anything interesting actually happen?

Well, im off to play DF.

I think it's just that it's not very interesting to watch someone play. Just like DF. There's a reason hours of DF micromanagement get skipped out of lets play videos! Doesn't make it a bad game.

I dont think not owning Diablo III excuses it from criticism. Remembering it costs (quite a lot of) money, it would seem quite reasonable to come up with an opinion about it before owning it. In fact you should come up with an opinion before buying it. Purchasing it blindly would seem quite silly.

Well sure. But I don't remember saying you shouldn't criticise it because you didn't own it. I said you shouldn't criticise it because you hadn't played it. You criticised the plot without even knowing what the plot was! You criticised the game balance without having even seen the game, and knowing nothing of the balance. I don't mind you disliking a game, or deciding not to play it, but badmouthing specific bits of it without knowing anything at all about them was just stupid.

[clarithium]

Is this a joke?

.08 is out with minecarts which can be fully loaded with +axes+ and thrown through ramps at invaders causing an explosion of gore, steel and lulz. Can Diablo 3 do that? No. No, it can't.

No, seriously: You'll be bored with Diablo after completing 60% of the game and realizing you've been doing the same thing for 15-20 hours (bashing monsters). Then you'll try online mode and get the story spoiled and broken by people who are 50 levels above you and cruise through the game to farm XP.

Diablo 3 is not Starcraft 2. Seriously, it's not. It's a game to play for a week and then let it catch dust in the shelf. Just like Diablo or Diablo 2. Only grinders will trully enjoy the game (but of course, given the amount of gamers who play grinding games nowadays, this could be a lot of people).

Exactly why I didn't buy it. $60 for 10 hours of entertainment at the most.

[Thief^]

10 hours at the least. I think a speedrun has been done in 9 hours, but regular play is considerably more, especially if you're playing through it with several different groups as I am.

Also I paid £25 for my copy, which is a lot less than $60
(and a lot less than I've donated to ToadyOne)

[kaenneth]

I was watching someone play Diablo III.
Does anything interesting actually happen?

Well, im off to play DF.

Spoiler: Derailing stuff (click to show/hide)

I dont think not owning Diablo III excuses it from criticism. Remembering it costs (quite a lot of) money, it would seem quite reasonable to come up with an opinion about it before owning it. In fact you should come up with an opinion before buying it. Purchasing it blindly would seem quite silly.

People like to bitch about popular stuff, it makes them feel superior and smart without realizing they are the exact opposite.

Its not so much "bitching" about popular stuff, its happens because popular things are... well popular. Reaching more people means more people are going to dislike it as well as like it.

Also, bashing Diablo III is probably more fun than playing Diablo III, from the looks of it 

Youtube video of the 'secret' level has moved it from 'never' to 'wait until it's $20' for me.

[Loud Whispers]

DF, no question needed.

[3]

Spoiler: Trolling/Continuation of derail (click to show/hide)

Stop assuming everyone has to play the games you like just because you like them.

You seem somewhat aggravated. Is there a reason for that?

I clearly either didn't express my point very well, or you didn't bother to read/infer it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. My point was that your main complaint with the genre is not vital to effective gameplay in the example case. In addition to different genres rewarding players in different ways, so do different games reward players in different ways, and the level of adherence to genre standards varies greatly.

But clearly you don't care to see either way, and clearly this is getting on your nerves, so I won't say any more.

Do you spend time learning pointlessly exact strategies in games you never play?

Oddly enough, I do.

[dizzyelk]

Spoiler: derail (click to show/hide)

This thread is based upon the notion that everyone who reads it would somehow want to play both DF and Diablo.  However, since playing both games requires that you be a fan of both the constructionist/simulationist gameplay with the "game" part increasingly fading away that DF has to offer, as well as the grinding loot hunting very-much-a-game gameplay that Diablo is offering, then the Venn Diagram is going to be drawn around a very narrow sliver of the playerbase. 

I've seen you talk out of your ass before, Kohaku, but this simply must take the cake.

You must not have played the old 2D version. It was far more gamey than what we have now. IMO removing the gamey aspects has only been improving the experience.

All this talk about the servers being down as much as they are has only made me happier with my position of not buying Diablo 3. You'd think that Blizzard would have the server capacity for a release of this magnitude set up before release. Plus finding out about the fact that you have to be logged in to play, without even an offline single player mode is not something to entice me to get the game. Why does EVERYTHING have to multiplayer?

[JohnieRWilkins]

All this talk about the servers being down as much as they are has only made me happier with my position of not buying Diablo 3. You'd think that Blizzard would have the server capacity for a release of this magnitude set up before release. Plus finding out about the fact that you have to be logged in to play, without even an offline single player mode is not something to entice me to get the game. Why does EVERYTHING have to multiplayer?

Because not everyone likes playing with themselves. /lol

[Corai]

Dwarf fortress, what else do I need? I have my kobolds.

[dizzyelk]

All this talk about the servers being down as much as they are has only made me happier with my position of not buying Diablo 3. You'd think that Blizzard would have the server capacity for a release of this magnitude set up before release. Plus finding out about the fact that you have to be logged in to play, without even an offline single player mode is not something to entice me to get the game. Why does EVERYTHING have to multiplayer?

Because not everyone likes playing with themselves. /lol

Yep, gods forbid we have a game with a good plot written for a single player to pick up and put down any time they desire, without having to rely on others, and showing a general lack of penis jokes...

[alexandertnt]

Spoiler: Cant... Resist... (click to show/hide)

(This is not a criticism of anyone, I dont want it to seem like that)

I was watching someone play Diablo III.
Does anything interesting actually happen?

Well, im off to play DF.

I think it's just that it's not very interesting to watch someone play. Just like DF. There's a reason hours of DF micromanagement get skipped out of lets play videos! Doesn't make it a bad game.

Of course, without having played the game I can't absolutely be sure that I would not enjoy it. But I do know I dont get any joy out of leveling, increasing stats, or character "trees" or whatever they are called. Mostly because games have done them to death, and I suppose I just want to see some of the archaic mechanics change into something more... I dont know... interesting. (DF's health system, for example. Something like it should become more common place  )

You criticised the plot without even knowing what the plot was!

I think it is reasonable for someone to criticise the plot without knowing anything about it. for example, Im not interested in any plot. While this itself may not be grounds for disliking a game (as not being interested in a plot would seem to only not add to any enjoyment, not actually subtract), If a game's main hype is its plot, than it generally suggests that it is intended to be the focus, and generally suggests that there was not much in the other areas to show off. Which is what someone like me is looking for. Even for those that are interested in the plot, there is plenty online about it. None of this is a guarantee, of course.

You criticised the game balance without having even seen the game, and knowing nothing of the balance.

Again, for me, the balance of the game is pretty much irrelevent. If some class is over/underpowered, meh. Sometimes its fun to play a weaker/stronger character, particularly if it makes sence. For example it seems highly unlikely that all the typical class types should have an equal ability to survive.

This, of course, does not prove the game bad, but demonstrates how it is quite reasonable to criticise a game that one has not bought or played.

(I have no doubt its not really a bad game,  but the price tends to move the bad-game-goal-post quite a lot. Of course, when it comes to enjoying the game it ultimately comes down to the user.)

[Dvalinn]

Play a game with heart and thought put into it for many years, or a puke-quality bastardization of a classic duo of games?

This elitist crap is getting old. I'll be playing D3. Not because I don't like DF, and not because I'm a die-hard D3 fan or even a hardcore fan of the genre (I didn't play it launch day, or the day after), but because I'd rather wait for DF to be patched a bit more before I get serious about a new fort and, despite the fashionable hate in this thread, D3 is a high quality game that many good people poured a lot of heart into that turned out - and this is the important part - to be great fun to play (especially co-op).

[TheSlimeGod]

I just dropped a $60 check to Tarn into the mail because fuck always online DRM.

I like this idea.  Everytime there is an anticipated, big-name-company game that gets released that I am somewhat offended (read: Nauseated) by (Most things from EA as an example.) I will give the equivalent of said offending company's price to Tarn instead.  Because every time I get suckered in to buying a pale, regurgitated piece of shit that I play for 20 minutes a little bit of hope inside me dies and I revert back to DF or classic games or sticking my hand into the blender while it's on (Which is by far more entertaining than most big release games these days).

That said, I won't be doing it with D3 as I just bought it.  And although having my initial enthusiasm destroyed inside of 3 seconds when I saw the terrible quality of the character graphics (Backgrounds, water effects etc look nice though) and heard the terrible voice acting (So ... don't go the female Monk if you can't handle shit voicing.) I have to say after getting my brain beyond the easy fights, the poor voice acting, incredibly unimaginative dialogue, characters with jagged edges and the disappointing cut-scene at the end of Act 1 I have still somehow enjoyed myself.  Maybe it's nostalgia for D1 and D2 propelling me through the game or maybe I forced myself to re-assess my high expectations after a friend chided me for having a whine about the above-mentioned.  I don't know.  I'm looking forward to my broke-arse friends getting it so we can relive days of past glory like smashing through all of D1s acts as quickly as possible.

But the game is what it is.  If you're a fan of the Diablo style of game then you'll get some enjoyment from D3, unless you are a one-eyed (figuratively) Diablo fanboy who can't get past the implemented changes. 

I do have to point out that, after being a World of Warcraft player for a number of years (Retired now, thanks to a disagreement with Blizzard over sending them my photo ID) there are striking similarities between the WoW franchise and Diablo 3.  Even the box it came in made me think 'WoW Expansion'.  The requirement of Battlenet (Which is cool, cos I can talk to all my other Blizzard buddies no matter what game they're in), the achievements system, the auction house and, in my opinion, a slightly more cartoony feel in D3 make you wonder if this isn't the beginning of World of Diablo...

Oh, also, not all of the dialogue and voice-acting is crap or corny or cheesy or cliched.  And I can't comment on story as it's still early days for me in the game.  It'll be Max Payne 3 for me next and then back to DF until GTA V I guess...

[TheSlimeGod]

Also I paid £25 for my copy, which is a lot less than $60
(and a lot less than I've donated to ToadyOne)

I paid around $80 AUD for it, which is standard for new releases here really.  I gave my days up of pirating years ago and now atone myself by buying the games I love or am interested in (or curoious about) so the $$ doesn't bother me.  Aaaaaand, the girl who served me was gorgeous and a genuine PC nerd.  Having coffee with her next week ... so even if the game is a lot of bunk I don't think I'm going to feel too cheated...!