Midoriya Izuku looks weak for Diavolo

Diablo 3 - not that great?

  • Heyho boys and girls, I have something to complain about again and I want you to be a part of it

    This time it turns around, as you should have surely seen from the title, Diablo 3 blizzard's newest work.

    So honestly ...
    At the beginning I was blown away, the game was really fun, but when I brought the first character to its maximum level, the air was quickly out again.
    The highest level of difficulty of the game could be reached laughably quickly. Where you needed several months for the beloved second Diablo, you need a few days with a few overleveled helpers who will smack everything that comes too close to you.

    The inferno level of difficulty is then designed with a character who is really well equipped in the previous level of difficulty, something like a monster hunter freedom unite endgame quest against the worst that the game has to offer and then only armed it with a sandwich.
    Blizzard forces the player into one of really few ways of playing and even so the chances of knocking down a somewhat stronger opponent are almost zero.
    Such opponents are littered with all special techniques and the battlefield looks like this without further ado.
    [Blocked graphic: http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/8755385/1024/Picture-Box/Auf-die-fresse.png] SEARCH YOUR OWN CHARACTER !!!
    You don't see anything except attack effects that immediately exhale your life with only the slightest physical contact.

    Well ... you may not understand that if you haven't tried the game, but there is something funny to say here. This idiotic difficulty is intentional. With Dia3, Blizzard introduced an item policy that made it practically impossible to find even one useful item. Just at this moment of powerlessness, the real money auction house was placed in the game ...
    I WONDER WHY?

    Dia3 has degenerated into an item hunter game which, especially towards the end, can no longer offer any pure game fun, as you are more likely to "die together" with new weapons. If you don't feel like being pissed off any more, you can buy and / or bid for weapons in the game's action house for 2,000 euros.
    The price varies according to the insidiousness of the seller of the desired item.

    Blizzard isn't exactly stupid. They also noticed that a good 60% of the players had the game off the record again and began to apologize psyeudo ruefully.

    Bashiok- the voice of blizzards to the community- said the following.
    Original from Bashiok
    We recognize that the item hunt is just not enough for a long-term sustainable end-game. There are still tons of people playing every day and week, and playing a lot, but eventually they're going to run out of stuff to do (if they haven't already). Killing enemies and finding items is a lot of fun, and we think we have a lot of the systems surrounding that right, or at least on the right path with a few corrections and tweaks. But honestly Diablo III is not World of Warcraft. We aren't going to be able to pump out tons of new systems and content every couple months. There needs to be something else that keeps people engaged, and we know it's not there right now.

    We're working toward 1.0.4, which we're really trying to pack with as many fixes and changes we can to help you guys out (and we'll have a bunch of articles posted with all the details as we get closer) , and we're of course working on 1.1 with PvP arenas. I think both those patches will do a lot to give people things to do, and get them excited about playing, but they're not going to be a real end-game solution, at least not what we would expect out of a proper end -game. We have some ideas for progression systems, but honestly it's a huge feature if we want to try to do it right, and not something we could envision being possible until well after 1.1 which it itself still a ways out.


    So now joking aside and watch out.
    The fat developer and publisher Blizzard knew that they didn't have the necessary tools for a good endgame, but just for that reason they went on the item hunt to get a little more time out?
    Now do you want to keep your users happy with PVP and such a smile until you can knock out your great idea for a good endgame? Well ... hopefully blizzard still has a lot of fun milking the users who can continue to enjoy the game despite everything ... I can't.
    I thought I would have seen it all with Final Fantasy XIII, but that's really the height ...
    [SIZE = 7] I prefer to keep playing Silent Hill and draw my soul out of my body. [/ SIZE]
    What do you all mean?
    What do you think of all of the tam tam?
    "I believe in a universe that doesn't care and people who do."
  • It does not surprise me.
    In general, I've become more cautious about hyped games since the Mass Effect debacle and unreasonable copy protection (well, secondary problem here, the player is manipulated differently.) When I saw a few reviews, it was pretty quickly clear what was going on, everyone Despite assurances from Blizzard that this is not the case.

    The hacking-heavy insanity is due to the fact that they put their testers in front of them, who barely grabbed it and then made it extra difficult, on the grounds that the players will be even more resourceful than the testers. Oh well.

    In general, I notice that many game studios slacken extremely after they threw a (successful?) MMORPG on the market. It's like that with Blizzard, it's like that with Bioware ...

    In general, I have to say that I found Diablo II deadly boring and therefore had no real interest in Part 3, but what they pulled off is still pretty cheeky and if you let it go like that, the player will exploit it Future. It is already a luxury today if you get a complete, playable game on the day of the release and don't have to buy endings and wwi through some DLC in order to have the complete experience.
  • In general, I notice that many game studios slacken extremely after they threw a (successful?) MMORPG on the market. It's like that with Blizzard, it's like that with Bioware ...

    Haha, BioWare? MMO? Successful? The chickens are laughing there.
    [SIZE = 7] BioWare has deteriorated a lot since they were taken over by EA, and that's how it works, when EA takes over a successful studio, it has happened more than once. SWTOR is just a symptom and not a cause. [/ SIZE]

    And that Diablo 3 would be the junkie of the year was already clear long before the release. I didn't touch the game myself (massive single-player online role-playing games are just not my genre, thank you, Blizzard). But, seriously - diluted gameplay, way too colorful style, no atmosphere, RMAH (which of course does not affect the game at all, we swear on a pile of Mao Bibles), this "copy protection". The signs were there. People bought it for the same reason they bought the other two completely screwed-up sequels, Mass Effect 3 and Skyrim, because it had the name of a popular game series on it.

    All the jokes like bug 37 and the massive hacks are really just the icing on the cake.
  • Haha, BioWare? MMO? Successful? The chickens are laughing there.

    Therefore "successful" in brackets and with a question mark because WoW is correct, SWTOR is not. Actually thought that was self-explanatory. Well But somehow the priorities just seem to shift, other target groups. The unnecessary multiplayer of ME3 shows this shift very well, especially because the SP suffered massively from it.

    I think Skyrim is a pretty good game from what I saw. But as with all Bethesda Games, the only mods make the games good, and Skyrim hasn't been out long enough for that.

    ME3 ... well, I commented on this in another thread.
  • "Stay a while and listen"
    [SIZE = 7] I think it will be a longer text [/ SIZE]

    I didn't notice anything about the whole Diablo III drama around the release time, simply because I couldn't play it - PC too bad.

    Now that I've been home for a while, I of course sat down at my brother's PC and started playing: 3

    I have to admit: I don't make as many demands on the game as some others. I only play in single player mode and then only once or maybe a second or third time with other characters (depending on my mood, mood and time). I always want to explore EVERYTHING and also pick up EVERYTHING I find. Players may not feel like playing anyway. XD But what annoys: Internet connection to be able to play. Whether this is really necessary or not is something that can be argued about. I can do just fine without Battlenet.

    I'm only now in Act III but one or the other has already struck me xD
    What does Blizzard need 10 years for if they even take over sound effects from the second part? XD Nothing bad in and of itself, but apart from the graphical improvement, there isn't really anything new in the game
    Personally, that doesn't bother me now, I gambled the second part to death and I'm happy that the sequel is now very similar, but there are certainly people who expected more xD

    I already noticed that with the lame items. There is hardly anything there. Especially when it comes to weapons, you only get the last bit of shock. I still walk around with yellow 30s boots, although you can find some 60s or 70s boots on every corner (if the hardcore gamers call me a noob, Wayne xD is just one example).

    But it is extremely good that you can always find some logbooks and writings that tell the story. Either I didn't check what they were talking about behind the story in Diablo II, or there was just not that much information yet? (Have only now checked that Andariel, for example, was also one of the seven evils xD always thought she was just some random end boss). Was there anything like an explanation of the story in the first part? I can't remember anything about that. Just the throw into the cold water ...

    Conclusion: that's enough for me, but I can well imagine that people who expected more are just not satisfied.

    Edit: Okay, but not as long as expected xD
    Oh yes: And Leah looks a lot better on her avatar than in the cut scenes D: <
  • Original from Crowbar
    [...] People bought it for the same reason as the other two completely sifted sequels, Mass Effect 3 and Skyrim, because it had the name of a popular game series on it. [...]

    So that Skyrim is considered bad would be new to me. And I like it too, although after 90 hours the air is a little out of breath. Or is that your personal opinion and not that of the "gamers", as it is with regard to D3 and ME3 (which is also a point of contention ...)?
  • I also think Skyrim is anything but screwed up. It's a matter of taste. There are just as many who say Oblivion is the worst part of the series, and others say they least liked Morrowind. For me, Oblivion and Skyrim share the throne. Morrowind is great, but I didn't like it as much as the two successors. But enough of that. ^^

    @ Topic: It was immediately clear to me that I would not buy Diablo III when I heard about the permanent online obligation. I can't stand that at all. And when I look at what the players are writing about it, I'm actually quite happy not to have bought it (also because my laptop would probably have been destroyed in such "effect orgies". It had slight problems when I was with the witch doctor) Throwing these weird spiders. xD).
    Even if I have to admit that the beta was actually quite fun. ^^
  • Original from Evilitschi
    Original from Crowbar
    [...] People bought it for the same reason as the other two completely sifted successors, Mass Effect 3 and Skyrim, because it had the name of a popular game series on it. [...]

    So that Skyrim is considered bad would be new to me. And I like it too, although after 90 hours the air is a little out of steam. Or is that your personal opinion and not that of the "gamers", as it is with regard to D3 and ME3 (which is also a point of contention ...)?

    Skyrim is, objectively, not a good game. That it is very popular, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about the quality.
  • Original from Crowbar
    Original from Evilitschi
    Original from Crowbar
    [...] People bought it for the same reason as the other two completely sifted sequels, Mass Effect 3 and Skyrim, because it had the name of a popular game series on it. [...]

    So that Skyrim is considered bad would be new to me. And I like it too, although after 90 hours the air is a little out of breath. Or is that your personal opinion and not that of the "gamers", as it is with regard to D3 and ME3 (which is also a point of contention ...)?

    Skyrim is, objectively, not a good game.


    Please bring a few arguments when you are already saying that it is "objectively" bad.
    Top 4 ™ Agathe
    Or: Who the fuck is Team Rocket?
  • MSC

    Contributions
    488
    gender
    Male
    place of residence
    Germering b. Munich
    Wii FC
    2691-5349-8711-1991
    3DS FC
    5155-2903-2971
    NNID
    hkmsc
    I used to play Diablo II, too, every now and then I turn it on, but TERA Online came out 2 weeks before the Diablo III release and I got stuck with it.
    I think it's a shame that Blizzad got the series so broken, unfortunately Zuxxes has also managed that with the Earth 21xx series.
    Keeping the players happy with PvP until a reasonable solution is found is really ridiculous.
    The developers themselves admitted that they didn't make it through the highest level of difficulty and hope that the players will do better. But if you only get MistItems, that can't work.
    The "problem" with Diablo II at that time was that the player had so much gold at some point that it could no longer be spent, the levels of difficulty were IMO ok.

    When you hear these statements, you have to think hard about getting Diablo III at all.
    I was a little put off by the fact that the computer could handle the requirements of the game. I fell for GTA4 with it before. Graphically, TERA looks much better and still runs smoothly ...
  • Original from Omen
    Please bring a few arguments when you are already saying that it is "objectively" bad.

    I once posted that in the relevant thread.
  • Original from Crowbar
    Original from Omen
    Please bring a few arguments when you are already saying that it is "objectively" bad.

    I once posted that in the relevant thread.

    But that all looks very subjective to me
  • Original from Evilitschi
    Original from Crowbar
    Original from Omen
    Please bring a few arguments when you are already saying that it is "objectively" bad.

    I once posted that in the relevant thread.

    But that all looks very subjective to me

    Nope, these are legitimate problems. The only question is whether they bother you.
  • The only problem is that you can find as many points of criticism in _all_ games and that all games would be bad per se (read: objectively).
    Top 4 ™ Agathe
    Or: Who the fuck is Team Rocket?
  • Original from Crowbar
    Original from Evilitschi
    Original from Crowbar
    Original from Omen
    Please bring a few arguments when you are already saying that it is "objectively" bad.

    I once posted that in the relevant thread.

    But that all looks very subjective to me;)

    Nope, these are legitimate problems. The only question is whether they bother you.


    Objective: the new 'subjective'.

    established 2007

    I am really a lot, but not your friend.
  • Original from Omen
    The only problem is that you can find as many points of criticism in _all_ games and that all games would be bad per se (read: objectively).

    I'm not saying Skyrim is bad. It's just not good.