In all honesty, how is this game now?

#71darthjerroPosted 11/13/2012 12:04:22 PM
ARe there skill trees yet?
Is there stats we can assign?
Is there ANY rpg in the game?

Well, its still total fail then isnt it.....
D3 is dead and buried mate, dont bother.....

Look at POE instead.
The graphics arnt as nice as a million dollar gaming industry likes blizz,s, but the rest of the game surpasses this trainwreck, and thats the sad thing, it was done with 1/20 th of the budget ....

My only wish was for the guys that made POE to have the budget blizz has, and made d3 ..
#72rjames80Posted 11/13/2012 12:09:22 PM(edited)
noimnoturdaddy posted...
rjames80 posted...
*snip*

You're the one that sarcastically stated Blizzard was "tricking" you into having fun. I was simply pointing out that it was indeed the case, and from your post, it looks like I helped you remember this.

Glad to be of service.


Except that there's no trick necessary. If I think that I'm having fun then I'm having fun. That's pretty much how fun works. Is it even possible for somebody to think that they're having fun when they're really not? If I wasn't enjoying something then I would move on to something that I do enjoy. It's not like there's a lack of options available.

EDIT: The post above mine is by one of the previously mentioned trolls. Give him enough time and he'll post a whole list of what he thinks is wrong with D3. A large part of that list is stuff that has already been addressed in the patches or things that were never really an issue to begin with like white items being useless.
---
Jay Wilson, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.
#73JonWhitakerPosted 11/13/2012 12:20:13 PM(edited)
I'm not comparing diablo 2s patches to diablo 3s, diablo 3 hasn't been out long enough as you mentioned, but diablo 2s were slow plus you have to admit the duping, botting, exploits and spam were absolutely ridiculous.

sc2 is a different game entirely. it's competitive fighting always, it hosts competitions, ect. people aren't constantly expecting new content, more items to farm, ect. there is much less security issues blizzard has to worry about as well.

games with long life cycles do need addition income to keep updates, security, severs running, ect. sometimes it is just done through expansions, which diablo 3 will have on top of the rmah. but diablo 2 had more than just that problem, there were tons of sites selling diablo 2 items, blizzard's items, and blizzard wasn't getting anything for it and neither were the players, just some other company. blizzard found a good way to stop this, while letting their players get some of the money. why are you so against blizzard getting 15% off of ITS own game's items, while letting players get 75%? why do you expect them to allow you or another company to sell their virtual items without them getting any profit from it whatsoever?

also, I have sold things on the rmah, while playing this game that I already enjoy in the first place. every so often I enjoy drinking some beers with friends while killling some monsters just like in d2, talking about bs and hanging out. now while I play I have a chance for random money to drop that I can sell, that's okay with me. if while playing super Mario world there was a chance for a 10$ item to drop that I could sell I wouldn't hate the game. I'd continue to play the game because I enjoy it, and the chance to make some money on the side is a benefit. who doesn't like making money while doing something you enjoy?

also, I'm not sure where you get off calling me a 'lazy gamer' or what that even means. I don't look to diablo 3 to make me money, that is what my job is for. I am by no means lazy, but I do enjoy playing video games with friends when I have free time.

it sounds like you don't like playing any video games.

also, there are plenty of games that cost money that allow you to buy items instead of earning them, most any popular cellphone game does this.
---
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/lightningbla-1777/
#74rjames80Posted 11/13/2012 12:13:32 PM
JonWhitaker posted...
also, there are plenty of games that cost money that allow you to buy items instead of earning them, most any popular cellphone game does this.


Mass Effect 3 is a good example of this. It was not FTP and it gave you the option of buying items instead of earning them.
---
Jay Wilson, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.
#75noimnoturdaddyPosted 11/13/2012 12:29:28 PM
rjames80 posted...
JonWhitaker posted...
also, there are plenty of games that cost money that allow you to buy items instead of earning them, most any popular cellphone game does this.


Mass Effect 3 is a good example of this. It was not FTP and it gave you the option of buying items instead of earning them.

I don't consider cellphone games video games, I thought we were talking about actual AAA titles. ME3 works the same way D3 does. You can earn the points to buy a shot at unlocking what you want (it's random though), or you can buy the packs with real $$$ for more shots. Can you buy specifics? If they've added that, it's better, but still a parasitic move.

It being a recent trend doesn't mean it's been required for video games to survive from day 1. If you've rationalized it as okay, it's because you've become sick of feeling like you're being screwed and would rather convince yourself it's something better.

rjames80 posted...
Except that there's no trick necessary. If I think that I'm having fun then I'm having fun. That's pretty much how fun works. Is it even possible for somebody to think that they're having fun when they're really not? If I wasn't enjoying something then I would move on to something that I do enjoy. It's not like there's a lack of options available.

Don't take this the wrong way, but it sounds like you're too dumb to understand what I'm talking about. You might feel offended, but that's a compliment. Enjoy yourself.
---
This is great! I will use Heroin on the weekends now!
#76rjames80Posted 11/13/2012 12:33:35 PM
noimnoturdaddy posted...
rjames80 posted...
JonWhitaker posted...
also, there are plenty of games that cost money that allow you to buy items instead of earning them, most any popular cellphone game does this.


Mass Effect 3 is a good example of this. It was not FTP and it gave you the option of buying items instead of earning them.

I don't consider cellphone games video games, I thought we were talking about actual AAA titles. ME3 works the same way D3 does. You can earn the points to buy a shot at unlocking what you want (it's random though), or you can buy the packs with real $$$ for more shots. Can you buy specifics? If they've added that, it's better, but still a parasitic move.

It being a recent trend doesn't mean it's been required for video games to survive from day 1. If you've rationalized it as okay, it's because you've become sick of feeling like you're being screwed and would rather convince yourself it's something better.

rjames80 posted...
Except that there's no trick necessary. If I think that I'm having fun then I'm having fun. That's pretty much how fun works. Is it even possible for somebody to think that they're having fun when they're really not? If I wasn't enjoying something then I would move on to something that I do enjoy. It's not like there's a lack of options available.

Don't take this the wrong way, but it sounds like you're too dumb to understand what I'm talking about. You might feel offended, but that's a compliment. Enjoy yourself.


Resulting to insults because you have a weak argument? You try to explain simple concepts like you've discovered some big corporate cover-up. "Games find things that people think are fun and then put that in the game to sell it". No s***, genius! Instead of trying to insult me, why don't you try explaining what it is that you think I'm too dumb to understand. Maybe you're just too dumb to explain it properly.
---
Jay Wilson, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.
#77noimnoturdaddyPosted 11/13/2012 12:35:51 PM(edited)
It wasn't an insult, you getting offended is proving my point though. Burden of teaching isn't on me, that's like telling a teacher they're **** because their student can't string the alphabet together. Some people just don't get it, give it a few shots then wash your hands and try on someone with more potential.

PS: You meant to say "Resorting", not "Resulting". If you weren't getting worked up over nothing, your thoughts would be more coherent.
---
This is great! I will use Heroin on the weekends now!
#78rjames80Posted 11/13/2012 12:58:44 PM
noimnoturdaddy posted...
It wasn't an insult, you getting offended is proving my point though. Burden of teaching isn't on me, that's like telling a teacher they're **** because their student can't string the alphabet together. Some people just don't get it, give it a few shots then wash your hands and try on someone with more potential.

PS: You meant to say "Resorting", not "Resulting". If you weren't getting worked up over nothing, your thoughts would be more coherent.


Yes, suggesting that somebody may be dumb is not an attempt to insult them. My mistake. A teacher that teaches their students 1+1=3 is a bad teacher. You failing to properly explain how incorporating elements of gaming that people enjoy in to a game so that people will enjoy the game is somehow a trick makes you a bad teacher. Nothing you explained demonstrates how I'm being tricked. Making me think I enjoy something that I really don't would be a trick but that isn't the case here. For me anyhow, maybe there are some people that can be so easily fooled. I don't know.

PS: Resulting - Occur or follow as a consequence.Your insults occurred or followed as a consequence of your weak argument. I'm pretty sure resulting worked in the way that I used it. Resorting would have worked as well.

Either way, you're attacks aren't all that subtle and I'm coherent enough to recognize them.
---
Jay Wilson, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.
#79JonWhitakerPosted 11/13/2012 12:59:35 PM
noimnoturdaddy posted...
rjames80 posted...
JonWhitaker posted...
also, there are plenty of games that cost money that allow you to buy items instead of earning them, most any popular cellphone game does this.


Mass Effect 3 is a good example of this. It was not FTP and it gave you the option of buying items instead of earning them.

I don't consider cellphone games video games, I thought we were talking about actual AAA titles. ME3 works the same way D3 does. You can earn the points to buy a shot at unlocking what you want (it's random though), or you can buy the packs with real $$$ for more shots. Can you buy specifics? If they've added that, it's better, but still a parasitic move.

It being a recent trend doesn't mean it's been required for video games to survive from day 1. If you've rationalized it as okay, it's because you've become sick of feeling like you're being screwed and would rather convince yourself it's something better.

rjames80 posted...
Except that there's no trick necessary. If I think that I'm having fun then I'm having fun. That's pretty much how fun works. Is it even possible for somebody to think that they're having fun when they're really not? If I wasn't enjoying something then I would move on to something that I do enjoy. It's not like there's a lack of options available.

Don't take this the wrong way, but it sounds like you're too dumb to understand what I'm talking about. You might feel offended, but that's a compliment. Enjoy yourself.


I admit cellphone games aren't exactly the same thing.

I just feel like the rmah was a great solution at tackling the problem of third party sites selling diablo's items. players get most of the profit now, and the company that created the game gets a cut as well.

it is a recent trend, but gaming is evolving at a rate that most of us hardly even notice. back in the day we bought games that had game breaking glitches, no clear explanation of controls (even in the manual), and impossible difficulties that we just accepted and somehow beat it anyway. nowadays with new technology, such as patches and dlc, a game comes out and its fans completely tear it apart to change the game into what they want instead.

this changes a lot on the developer side as well. it raises costs tremendously. there is red tape, politics, the need for better graphics, longer games, and somehow pleasing your ridiculous fan base with new content, updates, and tweaks.

the ideal game is one you can play for a very long time and continue to enjoy (it keeps getting new features, longer, has great security and updates) and developers can't accomplish this by beginning sales alone.

what other games, while making money other than its initial fee, do the players get any of the cut?
---
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/lightningbla-1777/
#80mrplanktomPosted 11/13/2012 1:10:01 PM
JonWhitaker posted...

in d2, third party sites selling diablo items was a huge thing.




Yeah, but D2's drops weren't balanced around it.
---
There's no group of people more delusional than D3 fanboys. Including scientologists.