DIII, worth the time?

[Tuftears]

As far as loot goes, everyone gets loot from the monsters, but they can't see what loot dropped for other people, so in effect each player added also adds 100% to the number of drops-- not the quality of drops, but the number of drops.

[ViralSpiral]

Yeah, but each individual player gets the same amount of drops as if they were soloing - they just have to do more work to get it (unless they join games of people with much better DPS, in which case those players do the extra work.)

[Yricyn]

Diablo 3 upped drops for multiple players by having the awesome "everyone gets there own drops" functionality. This is something I forgot to mention in my "things they got right" post.

[kandrathe]

Diablo 3 upped drops for multiple players by having the awesome "everyone gets there own drops" functionality. This is something I forgot to mention in my "things they got right" post.

Now we just have "loot envy" whenever we see someone doing the identify animation on rares -- "What did you get?" "What did you get?"

[FireIceTalon]

Except the drops are so poor, we actually ask "how awful are the stats on that thing you just Id'd?"

[Bolty]

*Cough*

http://www.gamespot.com/video/919220/608...deo-review

*Cough*

Quark, this is why I have such a bromance with you. I was even thinking of Big Rigs when I posted that, and considering "I bet someone will point that out or some other really really horrifically bad game that deserves the title." That said, do they actually SAY "worst game ever" in the review?

I remember reading a review for it and the reviewer pointing out that Big Rigs isn't even technically a game, since it has no real objectives or goal. It's more of a tech demo of a game that was never completed, that some A-hole decided to box up and sell to make cash off of uninformed purchasers. As for a software product that actually tries to be a GAME, Duke Nukem Forever has to be pretty high up there, I'd imagine.

Thread hijack! This thread is now about bad games to make people realize that Diablo III is not even close to "bad." It just didn't live up to expectations.

[Quark]

Quark, this is why I have such a bromance with you. I was even thinking of Big Rigs when I posted that, and considering "I bet someone will point that out or some other really really horrifically bad game that deserves the title." That said, do they actually SAY "worst game ever" in the review?

I remember reading a review for it and the reviewer pointing out that Big Rigs isn't even technically a game, since it has no real objectives or goal. It's more of a tech demo of a game that was never completed, that some A-hole decided to box up and sell to make cash off of uninformed purchasers. As for a software product that actually tries to be a GAME, Duke Nukem Forever has to be pretty high up there, I'd imagine.

They didn't say anything in the video review! The text review:

Big Rigs is a game so astoundingly bad that it manages to transcend nearly every boundary put forth by some of gaming's absolute worst of the worst and easily makes it into that dubiously extraordinary category of being one of the most atrocious games ever published.
...
In theory, Big Rigs is supposed to be a racing game based on big trucks that speed through various US trucking routes in some kind of effort to deliver cargo before the competition gets there first--or else the truck gets busted by the law. At least, this is what the back of the game's box would have you believe. Let us make it very clear that these statements are all horrible, horrible lies. There is no coherent goal in Big Rigs. There is no cargo to be delivered. There are no police chases. In fact, there really isn't anything much in the game.

The basic idea in the actual game is that you pick one from four vaguely different trucks and then one from five vaguely different levels. You then compete against another truck in a simple checkpoint race. That's it. However, Big Rigs can't even get this basic concept right. The supposedly computer-controlled truck you're supposed to be racing against in the game never actually moves.

There's some more gems here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vid..._reception

[Kurosu]

The game isn't as bad as many people make it out to be, but it's not very good either.
I think it has a lot to do with your expectations from the game.
If you're a somewhat casual player, experiment with a lot of different characters and like to try different skill builds, play on Hardcore and take it slowly,
you'll most likely get a decent gaming experience, especially if you have some like-minded people to play with.

But if you're the kind of die-hard player that wants to rush to the "end game" as soon as possible, consider everything before it as just a passage point and optimizing your equipment is the main reason you play (opposed to playing for the sake of the story/killing monsters), you will most likely burn out very quickly.
There are many reasons why D3 isn't suited for this purpose, which are very well discussed in the D3 general forum (notably the "fundamentally flawed" thread) so I won't drag this thread into that.

[shoju]

Worst game ever made is over-the-top - there have been plenty of worse games made than D3.

Really? I consider ET for the Atari 2600 to be a masterpiece!!

[kandrathe]

...but it's not very good either.

Actually, I'd disagree. It's very good. Metacritic gives it an 88/100, or A- (same score as D2 btw) and I think that is a fair objective score.

It's just not what I wanted DIII to be, but I still play it and I enjoy it. But, I was expecting more than a remake of D1/D2. Had it been more innovative then it would have deserved an A+. If we had all never played D2 already, this would be an awesome 2011 release of D2.

I feel the same way when they remake old movies. Why? I've seen if already. But, yes, it's still a good story, with good acting, and was well made. However if someone hasn't seen the original that was made 20 years ago, then perhaps they'd think it was outstanding.

[Ashock]

...but it's not very good either.

Actually, I'd disagree. It's very good. Metacritic gives it an 88/100, or A- (same score as D2 btw) and I think that is a fair objective score.

It's just not what I wanted DIII to be, but I still play it and I enjoy it. But, I was expecting more than a remake of D1/D2. Had it been more innovative then it would have deserved an A+. If we had all never played D2 already, this would be an awesome 2011 release of D2.

I feel the same way when they remake old movies. Why? I've seen if already. But, yes, it's still a good story, with good acting, and was well made. However if someone hasn't seen the original that was made 20 years ago, then perhaps they'd think it was outstanding.

Umm no. "Awesome" to me is a game that I play exclusively for at least 6 months. I played D1 exclusively for 2 years and D2 for 4 years. I played D3 exclusively for 3 weeks. Well, you might say that that's why you said "If we had all never played D2 already". Ok.

But I also played WOW exclusively for 5 years. A host of earlier Bioware games for months and months at a time. I know people play Skyrim for months at a time. Now that's awesome.

D3 is just semi-ok, nothing more. I'm sure that there's those who will think it is much better than that, but they are the exceptions and not the rule.

[FireIceTalon]

*Cough*

http://www.gamespot.com/video/919220/608...deo-review

*Cough*

Quark, this is why I have such a bromance with you. I was even thinking of Big Rigs when I posted that, and considering "I bet someone will point that out or some other really really horrifically bad game that deserves the title." That said, do they actually SAY "worst game ever" in the review?

I remember reading a review for it and the reviewer pointing out that Big Rigs isn't even technically a game, since it has no real objectives or goal. It's more of a tech demo of a game that was never completed, that some A-hole decided to box up and sell to make cash off of uninformed purchasers. As for a software product that actually tries to be a GAME, Duke Nukem Forever has to be pretty high up there, I'd imagine.

Thread hijack! This thread is now about bad games to make people realize that Diablo III is not even close to "bad." It just didn't live up to expectations.

Some may say the expectations themselves were too high, and that the game couldn't have possibly lived up to that no matter how good it was. Indeed, the expectations were pretty much out the stratosphere, but I think the game could have come much closer to meeting them, cause the potential certainly is there. I think this Blizzard team though is way too out of touch with what the fans really want, to be able to deliver. Of course, some of the fans don't really know what they want either (complaining that D2 was too easy only to regret those words when they play D3 Inferno), but even so, there are just too many MMO elements in D3 that just shouldn't be there. Diablo is afterall an ARPG - and it baffles me that Blizz took everything that made the first two games fun for so many people and either removed them or changed them drastically to the point where people are like "wtf is this?".....

[kandrathe]

Umm no. "Awesome" to me is a game that I play exclusively for at least 6 months.

A- <> Awesome. A+ is Awesome. Against all the games in the game space, DIII is well above average -- and there is still room for them to improve some things to bring it up to a solid A. Most people don't measure games by the number of years of exclusive obsession.

I tend to be pretty picky. I doubt I'd pay a premium price for a C level game, unless it had some redeeming quality in game play (challenge, genre, or longevity).

I measure games by return in entertainment value (hours). A 10$ movie in the theater gives 5$ per hour of entertainment. By that measure, a game is "worth it" if you can enjoy it for 60/5 = 12 hours. So, then $15 / month for a WOW account is equivalent to 1 or 2 movies in a theater per month.

There are cheaper entertainment options if you don't think it's worth it.

[NuurAbSaal]

But if you're the kind of die-hard player that wants to rush to the "end game" as soon as possible, consider everything before it as just a passage point and optimizing your equipment is the main reason you play (opposed to playing for the sake of the story/killing monsters), you will most likely burn out very quickly.

I have no idea why you picked up Diablo 3 if you are that kind of player... Different strokes for different folks.

take care
Tarabulus

[Taem]

Umm no. "Awesome" to me is a game that I play exclusively for at least 6 months.

A- <> Awesome. A+ is Awesome. Against all the games in the game space, DIII is well above average -- and there is still room for them to improve some things to bring it up to a solid A. Most people don't measure games by the number of years of exclusive obsession.

I consider myself more of a Pass/Fail type of guy. If a game does not catch my interest immediately, it fails. If the game cannot hold my interest for more than 2-consecutive hours, it's not even worth my valuable time to invest involvement in.

As I've gotten older, I've become even more persnickety; I used to enjoy games for their story, or even because they were fun multiplayer (MP = everyone in the same room having fun; online = everyone in their separate rooms having fun), but have recently found that if I cannot enjoy the game for months or even years on end with the same level of involvement I started with, I pretty much can't wait to get away from the game. Even when my kids try to sucker me into playing Mario Party or Raymond Raving Rabbids MP, I feel like my time is slipping away like watching a bad movie, like part of me just died and there was nothing I could do about it. I enjoy writing, creating things as a hobby, not being spoon-fed entertainment. I suppose a game like Minecraft would be perfect for me, but I can't seem to get over it's terrible graphics and horrific music. I haven't seriously played any game in over a year, and the last one I did play seriously was Diablo 2: Median XL. What made that game so much different than anything else? I have no idea, but I enjoyed it for years before quitting D2 again.

I measure games by return in entertainment value (hours). A 10$ movie in the theater gives 5$ per hour of entertainment. By that measure, a game is "worth it" if you can enjoy it for 60/5 = 12 hours. So, then $15 / month for a WOW account is equivalent to 1 or 2 movies in a theater per month.

I can't help but comment: so by this logic, you'd be alright with purchasing items from the Auction Houses, and since that is now an option in D3, then I'm sure you would of been fine with it in Diablo 2... but wait, I remember you in particular having issue with item stores in D2. Because perhaps you felt the items found were harvested by bots? And D3 is different because...?

I guess this logic could continue with pirated goods and the real world market, and if the conversation were to continue long enough, to how corporations such as Walmart are destroying the mom-and-pop shops, killing ingenuity, creativity, and free enterprise on all levels.

But I'm straying off topic. So what makes something worth the value? A $15-dollar a month subscription to a online game? Purchasing items from auction-houses spending maybe $15-a-month? Purchasing and defeating new video games every month for $60. Individual preference I presume. So what was wrong with item stores back in the D2 days? Just because Blizzard didn't back them then doesn't make them alright now, does it?

[Occhidiangela]

Care for a nice game of chess?

[kandrathe]

So what makes something worth the value? A $15-dollar a month subscription to a online game? Purchasing items from auction-houses spending maybe $15-a-month? Purchasing and defeating new video games every month for $60. Individual preference I presume.

Yes. Purely viewed as entertainment budget.

So what was wrong with item stores back in the D2 days? Just because Blizzard didn't back them then doesn't make them alright now, does it?

It is almost as bad as gold farming/selling in WOW. GF is worse since it disrupts the MMO environment in the areas they are exploiting which are not instanced.

My problems with "black market" D2 item selling are manifold, but key are; 1) it was against the TOS and player who bought those items risked losing their accounts if caught, 2) it exposed the player to fraud, and theft, 3) it created a market for the cracking/abuse of duping.

I don't like the RMAH on DIII, but given their defense of having it to prevents the 3rd party abuse is the only valid argument I've heard. I'd almost believe it was a purely noble gesture if Blizzards cut of the auction profits were lower, or used charitably.

I won't use the RMAH, but I'm a live and let live kind of person. If others participate, then that is there thing. Much like prostitution really. I personally can't justify spending $200 real dollars on a something I could get for free (given time and luck).

[Occhidiangela]

Kandrathe: there is always a price to be paid, it just may not be in cash.

[Archon_Wing]

Kandrathe: there is always a price to be paid, it just may not be in cash.

For many, it was just a lot of the "downtime" in the entertainment that affected the experience. I mentioned it in the pacing thread in the D3 subforum, so just refer to that.

The plot was definitely enjoyable, but the game felt too short and by the middle of nightmare got a bit repetitive. At this point, my aim turned to "get phat loot" and the results have been mixed. This isn't unique to D3, at all, but I felt that rush in a lot of people came sooner because the content felt cut short. Act 1 is really well polished, but Act 3 is a bit short and Act 4 feels more like an extension.

Also, I really can't measure this in terms of money. Technically, this is the only game where I came out with a net profit (merely $10-15) and that wouldn't make it the best game ever. :p I can't say this could reflect the experience of everyone. Also, the majority of my games were played with other people, so like I said before, it's fine to play with others, but as a single player experience, I'd rather not.

Without a doubt, there are worse ways to spend $60. The only issue is to use that money.

[Dirathyn]

Also, you need to immediately reject any review of a game that actually says "Worst game ever made" in it. Come on.

*Cough*

http://www.gamespot.com/video/919220/608...deo-review

*Cough*

Hahahahaha! And I didn't have the sound on! DIII was MUCH better than that.