The Diablo Formula and how Diablo 3 falls short
#57
Hi,

(07-24-2012, 12:15 PM)Yricyn Wrote: $60 retail price / 300 hrs play time = $0.20/hr

Twenty cents an hour. How many times did you walk into an arcade in the 80's drop in a single quarter and play for an hour? Even if Diablo 3 doesn't deliver everything one might hope for, its hard to argue that it didn't deliver value.

It's not that easy. I used to think so myself, until I bought Civ V and Diablo 3. Dodgy I had played Civ IV and Diablo 1+2 until I burnt out on these games. I felt I got more than my money's worth out of these games because after I had stopped playing, I still regarded them as damn fine games and had very good memories about them. The only reason I had stopped playing was because I had seen all that could be seen and tried all I wanted to try with these games, *not* because I got frustrated with them. Heck, I even returned to all three games after a longer pause to play them again!

With Diablo 3 (and Civ V), it's different. Here I stopped playing because I got frustrated and bored, both by fundamental problems with the game design and mechanics. I still haven't seen all there is to see, but I don't care - it's no fun. I was deeply disappointed. So the memories I will hold about these games will more be about bad game design, frustration, rage-quitting and unfun moments, which leads to the feeling of wasted money - at least for me.

-Kylearan
There are two kinds of fools. One says, "This is old, and therefore good." And one says, "This is new, and therefore better." - John Brunner, The Shockwave Rider
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: The Diablo Formula and how Diablo 3 falls short - by Kylearan - 07-24-2012, 12:50 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)