[lordofduct]

modi was being sarcastic, "interesting and compelling" is what Wyatt Cheng (of blizzard) said about it to Joystiq.



I never was a Diablo fan. I only played the first one and thought it boring, dull, and simplistic... and I'm talking for the day it came out at that (played it back on my 75mhz Pentium with 8 megs of RAM).


As for the always connected thing, I personally have no problem with that considering most people have constant internet connection anyways. Hopefully it will subside the griefers a bit, one thing I remember well from Diablo 1 was the horrible griefing, and I heard Diablo 2 suffered from it as well.

And the auction I think is great idea. These types of games have always had auctioning going on, and always at the disapproval of the publishers. They would go as far as cancelling your account if caught doing it (see WoW). This is MUCH better IMO, definitely the right direction for games like these.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 02 August 2011 - 12:31 PM

[xclite]

I dislike always-on rules for single player games on principal. Sure, I have FIOS. That doesn't mean there is any legitimate reason to require an internet connection for a single player mode.

I also don't understand how that helps with griefing - sure Diablo 2 had dicks. To play with those dicks, you had to be online. How is "always connected" going to prevent griefing?

It's almost as annoying SC2's bullshit "Must be online to use a LAN" crap. In the end, it's fighting piracy and cheating at the cost of convenience, and being online in Diablo 2 didn't do much to stop the cheating.

[lordofduct]

I didn't say it would stop the griefing, I said it could assist in subsiding the griefers (primarily hacks and mods). Yes the single player always connected sucks, and I can understand complaints against it, but I bet from Blizzard's point-of-view the majority of their player base has a constant internet connection (and it has a cloud style game save, though some may contest they don't like that either).


The one thing that definitely annoys me about always-on games though is the longevity of my ownership of the game. I STILL play X-COM, Fallout, and old SCUMM adventure games. I have a vast collection of console games from the Sega MasterSystem to the Dreamcast. What happens to these always-on games once the server is disconnected?

Bullshit, that's what happens.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 02 August 2011 - 01:34 PM

[modi123_1]

I believe it's all about security. If your profile is online it can't be buggered locally and you can't add expensive items and get actual stacks of phat cash for item hacks.

[raziel_]

so whats the bad thing about mods? i find some of the mods of diablo 2 to be very nice and a lot more fun the original diablo...

[xclite]

Who cares if somebody hacks a single player mode? Internet connections are great for multi (and required, obviously), but I don't care if 4chan l33t dude has 999 stat items on his single player account.

This post has been edited by xclite: 02 August 2011 - 05:14 PM

[modi123_1]

Yeah, but that 999 stat item could be sold in the future "for actual cash auction house", right? That's not a good thing.

[xclite]

Did they actually claim they were going to let single player characters sell to multiplayers? Also I imagine you have to use internet to auction, so checks would be done there for security. There is no compelling argument for always on single player.

[KYA]

Well scratch this title off my want list. Looks like Skyrim is the only title left after BF3 got retarded.

[modi123_1]

I don't know how the single player/multiplayer will interact. It doesn't sound like there's a solo persay so that would make sense why you are forced online.

[BetaWar]

The constant connection things really ticks me off. What if I am on the bus? Or a plane? Or at a relative's house? I may not have internet, and as a result I can't play MY game.

There is this amazing thing about SINGLE player games - they don't require anyone else around. If I am playing a single player game I shouldn't need anything but my base machine (no internet) to play it. I don't really give a f88k if I can't play online with my single player character, after all I don't want to play with other people (that's the reason I made a single player character in the first place).

Then the character cap? So what, I am going to have to pay if I want more than 10 character slots? That's bull.

Blizzard is just being dumb with that one.

We shall see. If I get into the beta and am blown away I may buy it, but at this point I see no reason to waste my money.

I'm not a cow, and I don't want to be milked.

[xclite]

If there is no solo, then there would be no always on controversy. Of course you need the internet to remain online, and since Blizzard hates LAN play, Battlenet is your only option.

[BetaWar]

Well, considering that battle net connection when playing Diablo 2 is laggy on my 20 megabit/second connection to the point that I get dropped from time to time, and I am only ever playing with 2 other people I see no reason to think that D3 will do any better.

If I wanted an MMO I'd play Guildwars, or Perfect World, or Forsaken World, or one of the hundred other free to play MMOs out there. Diablo just shouldn't be an MMO. Period.

[NeoTifa]

BetaWar, on 02 August 2011 - 11:38 PM, said:

I'm not a cow, and I don't want to be milked.

Speaking of, there better be a cow level...

[raziel_]

tauren level-> "there is no cow level"
and blizzard always have affinity to cows anyway

This post has been edited by NoBrain: 03 August 2011 - 10:04 AM