The One-Stop Shop for all your Gaming News

[Zalis]

Uh oh, defending a game from an unsubstantiated viewpoint? Must be an overreacting fanboy!

So, D3 isn't all that and a bag of chips? Finally, validation!

I think it boils down to this -- I don't expect that everyone has to enjoy the games I enjoy. D3 seems really fresh for some, but been there, done that for others. Similarly, while I think it's nice to see a PC-centric shooter like Tribes return, it also has flaws and is not for everybody.

[RD]

I am getting on your case about it because when we were talking about D3, you said you'd pay $20 for a version of D3 that stripped out features that make D3 what it is. But now that we're talking about Tribes, you're saying some people will like it and some won't. Which is basically what I was saying about D3 when you and Alaris were critiquing a game you hadn't played.

[Zalis]

It's not either or. Diablo has a single-player heritage, while Tribes does not.

Not everybody's going to like D3, and that doesn't change whether I'd play an offline version or not. (or like I said, I'd buy a sp-only version of CoD, too) Tribes is multiplayer-only, Diablo 3 has NPCs and mobs. And now I've played D3, and my opinion is so far unchanged. That's not to say it's terrible, but I am not being swayed toward a purchase. More monster clicking that can be fun with friends. Just like Borderlands is best played with friends, I suspect the same is true for D3. The only reason it has to be online is because of the always-on that Blizzard added and then padded with features. Again, people seem to be ruling out the fact that quite a few people played D1 & 2 with very little interaction with bnet.

But after all that, it doesn't really matter, and we can continue to enjoy our holiday weekend. (well, maybe not Shawn, unless Canada has its own thing) You can spend your $60 now and enjoy D3 with friends, and I'm not required to think it's a revolutionary piece of software. The whole "but no--it's magical and you don't get it!" thing is essentially what Alaris and I were bucking against.

[Alaris]

Which is basically what I was saying about D3 when you and Alaris were critiquing a game you hadn't played.

Not sure how I got dragged into this... but my critique was based on having played the beta, having read reviews, and in fact having been fan enough to start the thread here ;)

Also, my critique was based on something new that was felt like more of a pain than an improvement (others agree), something that could have been improved (and 3rd party did it) and the fact that gameplay was quite similar to the original (which btw was a good thing mostly, some thought I meant it as only a bad thing as if games that are good have to be changed in the sequel).

[RD]

The whole "but no--it's magical and you don't get it!" thing is essentially what Alaris and I were bucking against.

May have been the point you were trying to make (and, according to Alaris below, that was not his point), but it definitely is not the point that came across.

Anyway, I've never said "It's magical and you don't get it," nor has my position on this, or really much of anything, been other than "I like it and that is enough for me."

[Alaris]

Shawn did dismiss what I thought was some good arguments against D3. But including Shawn, I think a lot of D3 fans put forth some really compelling arguments why D3 was in many ways magical. Blizzard make great quality games. They might not innovate much, but they really go thick with polish, and I appreciate that.

If I was in the mood for dungeon crawling, it's clear that D3 would be a great choice for it for many logical reasons.

[Zalis]

If I was in the mood for dungeon crawling, it's clear that D3 would be a great choice for it for many logical reasons.

Except today, when my cable was out, but the game was installed and everything else was functioning perfectly...

I kid, but mostly because I wouldn't have been playing it today anyway. (though the cable was out)

[shawn]

No one said it was magical and you guys just don't get it. (Although it's possible.)

We've been through this before, and what was annoying is that you guys were using your personal opinions as to what the game was 'supposed to be' as proof that the game sucked. Which is just.. hilarious. It's like if I said gw2 is bad because it should have click to move, because gw1 had click to move. Just.. no. It's a sequel, with an actual z axis this time. I'm not about to call it a bad game just because in gw1 the best way to kite was by clicking to move.

Likewise, D3 was created to be an online cooperative game, similar to gw. These revolutionary changes are nothing new in games. GTA3 went third person rather than 2d top-down like the previous games, Mario and Sonic are no longer just platformers, and of course Warcraft got turned into an MMO. It's ridiculous to judge a game on what you want it to be, you have to judge it on what it is.. It's like if I fire up DiRT 2 and say "This racing game is somewhat fun, but you know what would make it better? If it was a first person shooter, and I didn't have to use a gamepad."

[Alaris]

It's ridiculous to judge a game on what you want it to be, you have to judge it on what it is..

Shawn, stop taking the ridiculous position of the salesperson for the game made for aliens. Some people disagree with you on valid reasons. Accept it.

Games are made for players. It's one thing to "not get it" as occurs quite a bit with GW2, e.g. no trinity. But my complaints on D3 were very much in the category "I get it, and I do not like it".

If someone says that D3 skill system is terrible compared to skill trees, go ahead and rip through them.

[sorudo]

i kinda hate skill trees so maybe that's why i kinda like it, it's not a game to get exited about but it's fun nonetheless.