Another strike for Blizzard, DiabloIII!

[cidbahamut]

Re: Another strike for Blizzard, DiabloIII!

Always online is the dumbest thing ever for a game that isn't exclusively online multiplayer. If there's a single player mode of any sort you should be able to access it without ever plugging in an ethernet cord. Anything else is completely and totally inexcusable.

Taking away the pause button is also a colossal step backwards in fundamental game design. Online experience, sure you could make a case for it. Offline though? Offline I expect to be able to pause my game. It's been incorporated into just about every single game for the last several decades for a damn good reason. Taking it away serves no constructive purpose.

[Icemage]

Re: Another strike for Blizzard, DiabloIII!

So this is where you draw the line then? They lost me at the AH and "always online" bit. One is a move toward greed that compromises the PVP experience, the other is absolutely unnecessary for the single player.

The AH is optional. No one is forcing you to use it for single player. If you don't want to use it, you don't have to, hence why I don't care about it too much.

I sort of get why the do this "no pause" for games like this - its to condition you to not fall into the habit of going AFK or at least not idle in the battle areas when you go online. Besides, if you want to idle in a game like this, don't you just portal out to a town to do so? That's practically the same as pausing, you just move to a place where you won't be attacked because monsters don't spawn in towns..

Demon's Souls is a single player game I can't pause, because its also online at the same time. If I were able to pause the game, there would be no threat of player invasions at all, but that's part of the design. There's no threat of that in soul form, but you can't rest easy when you have your body, ever.

Dark Souls will be the same way.

Demon's Souls lets you idle. If you're sure you've killed everything in a particular area and you're not in body form (to avoid invasions), you can sit there for as long as you please. If you're stupid and leave something alive and walk away, that's your own fault.

When you can't even go back to town and idle without the game kicking you out, I consider that a problem.


Icemage

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Another strike for Blizzard, DiabloIII!

The AH is optional. No one is forcing you to use it for single player. If you don't want to use it, you don't have to, hence why I don't care about it too much.

Why is it so difficult for you to see the problem here?

I am a single player type of guy and I understand the problem thoroughly. I don't give a damn about your claims of it being optional or having no affect on me.

PVP isa big attraction for a lot of people and people tend to enjoy a balanced competitive game, not one where your opponent can pay his/her way to success.

Because what is everyone eventually going to have to do to get ahead in PVP? They're going to have to pay in.

The AH is a lure that will do nothing but create an arms race. The spin is that players can make some cash, but its not as classy as how Team Fortress 2 was doing that. The difference there is players were creating content, hats and such, to be placed in TF2 and they got a cut for it being used in the game.

If you want to have a pay model, make the player a participant and content provider and reward them for it. Everyone wins there. Its likely why DOTA2 got pulled right from beneath Blizzard's nose. Better community options over there with Valve.

All the Diablo III's AH serves to do is drive an arms race led by parasites and dupers.

When you can't even go back to town and idle without the game kicking you out, I consider that a problem.

If that's the real difference, then yes, that is a big problem since you have to deal with the hassle of a restart and connecting to the game all over again. I don't think there necessarily has to be a "pause anywhere" option for single player provided you can just portal out to a town and idle there.

So the problem is once again the "always online." Blizzard has rationalized the DRM as necessary because of the Auction House, which makes the AH a problem on another level.

Of course, they claim its not a DRM, but it totally is.

[Taskmage]

Re: Another strike for Blizzard, DiabloIII!

But seriously you can't pause or even idle for more than a few minutes? Yeah, yeah, "it's a beta" yadda yadda... but this isn't the sort of thing you'd put in if it weren't going to be in the official release.

You couldn't pause in the Diablo II beta either. There's no reason to assume that this time will be any different.

[DakAttack]

Re: Another strike for Blizzard, DiabloIII!

I can see the AH allowing players with money to blow to get ahead, but I think there's a limit to how far.

[Kailea]

Re: Another strike for Blizzard, DiabloIII!

I am waiting to see how bad the hacking gets to add gear for sale in the AH, will be amusing

[Taskmage]

Re: Another strike for Blizzard, DiabloIII!

I still don't understand why people care whether other people paid cash for their gear in this context. It's not like because of this, RMTs are going to monopolize act bosses and prevent me from getting the gear for myself, nor am I going to be forced to play with tweaked out players with gimp skill to level my characters. Worst case scenario in the co-op side of the game is someone I'm with causes exp and loot to drop faster than they would have been able to without a credit card.

Maybe if I was at all interested in the PvP side of things I would give a fraction of a crap, but seeing as I never cared for that side of Diablo in the first place and there's no incentive for participating other than waving your epeen at people, I'll gladly give it a pass and say "not my problem."

[cidbahamut]

Re: Another strike for Blizzard, DiabloIII!

I still don't understand why people care whether other people paid cash for their gear in this context.

It's laying the foundations for a style of game design that I do not care to encourage in any way, shape or form. So it doesn't matter whether or not I use it, simply purchasing the game gives them a financial reward to reinforce design choices I strongly disagree with. I'm voting with my wallet, because it's the one approach I know of that might realistically make a difference when it comes to how future games are designed.

[Taskmage]

Re: Another strike for Blizzard, DiabloIII!

It's laying the foundations for a style of game design that I do not care to encourage in any way, shape or form. So it doesn't matter whether or not I use it, simply purchasing the game gives them a financial reward to reinforce design choices I strongly disagree with. I'm voting with my wallet, because it's the one approach I know of that might realistically make a difference when it comes to how future games are designed.

You'd prefer it if Diablo 3 players bought their items off sites like d2items.com instead?

Rather, you'd prefer it was some possibly shady 3rd party company that was making a profit off of the secondary item market rather than the developer who has an interest in maintaining the play environment?

[cidbahamut]

Re: Another strike for Blizzard, DiabloIII!

Yes.

[Taskmage]

Re: Another strike for Blizzard, DiabloIII!

Please explain why.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Another strike for Blizzard, DiabloIII!

I don't approve of the exchange of real world currency for in-game items and I don't want to see developers encouraging the practice.

[Icemage]

Re: Another strike for Blizzard, DiabloIII!

Yes.

I gotta go with Taskmage here. With a tradeable item economy, you're going to have RMTs and 3rd party trading. D3's system is (in total) no worse than what D2 has, except with hopefully waaaaay less chatspam.

If you're playing single player, then you never have to worry about what other people are doing. And if you're playing PvP in a game like this, where there are RPG elements and customizable tradeable gear, you're going to have imbalances no matter whether there is "officially" sanctioned item trading or not.

Really my main objection to this is that Activision apparently cares more about their bandwidth cost of maintaining a constant connection to every player - to the point where you can't even idle in town to have dinner for a few minutes - but they don't care that you can't unplug the internet and play on a laptop on a train. That's just asinine. If ATVI are going to be douchebags and force people to stay connected, they should suck it up and absorb that bandwidth cost because it wasn't necessary until they decided that connection was necessary in the first place.

EDIT:

I don't approve of the exchange of real world currency for in-game items and I don't want to see developers encouraging the practice.

Reality check: Given the design of the game, real world currency trade for in-game items will occur whether or not it is "encouraged" by developers. This is not a convincing argument.


Icemage

[Taskmage]

Re: Another strike for Blizzard, DiabloIII!

I don't approve of the exchange of real world currency for in-game items and I don't want to see developers encouraging the practice.

The system has no tangible impact on your personal game experience. Why do you disapprove?

[cidbahamut]

Re: Another strike for Blizzard, DiabloIII!

The system has no tangible impact on your personal game experience. Why do you disapprove?

Because I perceive it as part of a larger trend of a shift in fundamental game design philosophy within the industry.