Page 1 of 2
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:47 am
by Leisher
Video.
Some peeps aren't happy that it's not dark like the first two.
Who gives a shit? Does it play well?
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:07 pm
by Leisher
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:55 pm
by TPRJones
Leisher wrote:When did Blizzard become EA?
The day they merged with Activision.
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:44 pm
by GORDON
Blizzard will not be getting my money.
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:06 pm
by Cakedaddy
I never played mods, but understand the frustration for those that did. But, the online only and items for money part. What's wrong with that? I thought their justifications were pretty good.
I've always been FOR items for money. I sold UO items and made about $2000 over the years of playing. I bought money in EVE and even on a player run UO server. There was a time where I had more items in game than I needed and sold them for cash. There were times where I had more money in my wallet than I did time to play the game. So, I could play EVE and only run missions and shit and someday get the ships/skills I needed to fight bad guys. Or, I could spend some money and fight bad guys right away.
As far as online only, most of my games are like that any way. Steam SAYS they have an offline mode. Anyone ever tried it? It's NEVER worked for me. But, the times I don't have an Internet connection strong enough for me to authenticate with the Steam servers are few and far between. Plus, like they said, if they are selling items for money, they need to be able to verify someone isn't just hacking their client and creating the item. Granted, there could be duping bugs on the servers, etc. But, I can understand their need to authenticate shit.
So, nothing I've read yet that really bothers me.
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:56 pm
by Leisher
I never played mods, but understand the frustration for those that did.
I apologize, but that makes no sense. What frustration does one have when playing a free mod? It's free! It's not made by the devs. You don't HAVE to install them at all. However, developers are giving folks the ability to make mods for their games more and more these days. Denying the ability to do so is an interesting choice.
What's wrong with that? I thought their justifications were pretty good.
I've always been FOR items for money. I sold UO items and made about $2000 over the years of playing. I bought money in EVE and even on a player run UO server. There was a time where I had more items in game than I needed and sold them for cash. There were times where I had more money in my wallet than I did time to play the game. So, I could play EVE and only run missions and shit and someday get the ships/skills I needed to fight bad guys. Or, I could spend some money and fight bad guys right away.
First, let me defend Blizzard and say that I believe they have a right to make money off transactions involving their intellectual property.
That being said, I think limiting players' options in doing so is a bit shitty. On top of that, I'm not a fan of microtransactions, nor do I understand gamers who are buying into this trend. I can see it being acceptable when you've spent nothing up front for the game, but to continually be charged for features/items after spending $50-$60 upfront (and for a game that isn't even a MMO) is bullshit.
As far as online only, most of my games are like that any way.
You play MMOs and games that are multiplayer only mostly. Diablo III is, at the very least, 50% geared towards single player. In that respect it has zero business being online only.
Steam SAYS they have an offline mode. Anyone ever tried it? It's NEVER worked for me.
Yeah, I had a problem playing a game offline back when Steam first launched, but that hasn't been the case since. After the initial install, I believe all Steam games (except those geared for online play) can be played offline. And there are FAQs detailing how to do it if you're having problems.
Look, even if Blizzard is simply trying to make some extra cash, while protecting their intellectual property, and genuinely want to do it with the best of intentions, it still irritates me. Why? Because they're embracing bad trends in gaming.
I watch the gaming landscape and I'm worried that in 15 years all games are going to be like the games on Facebook: never ending, all features/items/etc. via microtransactions, advertisements galore, no originality, etc.
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:43 pm
by Cakedaddy
Frustration at them not being available. You don't always have to assume I don't agree with you on something. 
I'm not sure how I feel about the micro transaction thing yet, as I haven't really participated in one. I've played them, but have not spent money on them. It bothers me that TF2 is micro transaction now. I keep getting these crates that MIGHT have an uber rare item in them. But, I have to pay $2.50 to open them. I've heard that anything you can buy in the shop, can also be randomly acquired during normal game play, but I don't know if that includes the super rare stuff. I feel like I should get credit for the money I spent on the game originally. On the other hand, not having the rare item doesn't keep me from playing and enjoying the game. And the ONLY incentive for me to ever open the crate is because I heard that people are paying up to $800 for some of the rare items. So, I'd be spending the $2.50, not to have the item, but for the chance to be able to sell the item.
But then, I think the Magika model is decent. A core game that's cheap, and lots of DLC that's also cheap. I was able to pay $10 for a good game and when I find that the people I was going to play with, don't want to play with me any more (I'm still waiting for Troy to call and I'm online all the time) I didn't have a $50 wasted investment. Or, if the game just turns out to be bad or something.
Ya, I do prefer playing with friends over playing with myself. So, ya, online only restrictions don't affect me much. I bought, and never played Diablo 2, because the people I was SUPPOSED to play with, beat the game by themselves. . . . fuckers.
I haven't tried to play offline in forever, so, I do hope it's better now.
Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:57 pm
by Troy
Will still buy and love.
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 9:59 am
by Leisher
Frustration at them not being available. You don't always have to assume I don't agree with you on something.
I'm way confused here. I'm not picking on you, I'm seriously just not following this...why would someone be frustrated about not being able to get a free mod? Oh wait, just figured it out.
Trust me, I'm not a heavy mod user, but some mods are amazing. Try playing Fallout 3 sometime straight up, and then go get all the mods available (the good ones). They change the game for the better.
The best way to explain mods is to point out a fact about film making: They say if directors weren't given deadlines, they would forever continue to work on their film. Mods are that endless tinkering. They improve games after they've been released and abandoned by the developer. Sure a lot of mods suck (like if someone made a "Greedo shoots first" mod), but a lot are really impressive and boost graphics and performance or add useful items, like backpacks, better flashlights, etc.
Some mods are full conversions like the Star Wars full mod for Homeworld. Some just add levels like all the Duke player made levels back in the day. Some add campaigns... The list goes on and on and on.
I'm not sure how I feel about the micro transaction thing yet, as I haven't really participated in one. I've played them, but have not spent money on them. It bothers me that TF2 is micro transaction now. I keep getting these crates that MIGHT have an uber rare item in them. But, I have to pay $2.50 to open them. I've heard that anything you can buy in the shop, can also be randomly acquired during normal game play, but I don't know if that includes the super rare stuff. I feel like I should get credit for the money I spent on the game originally. On the other hand, not having the rare item doesn't keep me from playing and enjoying the game. And the ONLY incentive for me to ever open the crate is because I heard that people are paying up to $800 for some of the rare items. So, I'd be spending the $2.50, not to have the item, but for the chance to be able to sell the item.
But then, I think the Magika model is decent. A core game that's cheap, and lots of DLC that's also cheap. I was able to pay $10 for a good game and when I find that the people I was going to play with, don't want to play with me any more (I'm still waiting for Troy to call and I'm online all the time) I didn't have a $50 wasted investment. Or, if the game just turns out to be bad or something.
I stopped playing TF2, a game I LOVED, because of microtransactions. I don't have time or the patience for that bullshit. I don't give a rat's fucking ass about a collection of hats in a video game. Granted, this video game has a much longer shelf life than most, but it WILL eventually be replaced and every collection, achievement, etc. earned or bought within will be discarded and forgotten.
Using TF2 as the example, another bad thing microtransactionsdo is force the developer to work on new items to sell all the time. This negatively affects gameplay in a big way. Back when TF2 was free, aside from the initial purchase, new releases were BIG news. They'd have new maps, new gameplay mods, maybe a new weapon, it'd be announced with some funny video. Now it's a new hat or an unbalanced weapon released without fanfare, but ASAP so the new things can start earning.
Gameplay and game balance is being tossed in the name of making a buck. Instead of embracing this gamers should be pushing back in a big way. They're not though because there's always a bunch of spoiled pricks anxious to spend mommy's money so they can have the latest hat.
Stupid assholes.
Zynga games are where microtrancsactions should reside, and I've got no problem with that at all. From past experience I think they're ridiculously overpriced (and I mean about 500% too high), but whatever. Those types of games lend themselves to that pay model. Big time releases for PCs and/or consoles do not fit that model.
Who the fuck wants to play a FPS where your perfectly executed headshot bounces off a guy's uber hat that he paid an additional $10 to get?
The developers will argue that these microtransactions keep a game live TF2 alive, and help them make new content for it. And I get that, but they're unbalanced the game and making it unappealing for new gamers or gamers who don't want to continually pump money into a game, no matter how fun it is, just to "keep up with the Joneses". That sort of business practice is bullshit.
There has to be a better way. There should not be a competitive advantage available to gamers who want to shell out a few dollars more. It ruins the game for everyone else. Please take note that there are no Starcraft items like that, and it's probably the most played game in gaming leagues.
Sorry for the rant, but this practice irritates the shit out of me. It's destroying gaming.
Ya, I do prefer playing with friends over playing with myself. So, ya, online only restrictions don't affect me much. I bought, and never played Diablo 2, because the people I was SUPPOSED to play with, beat the game by themselves. . . . fuckers.
I don't know why Diablo became one of those games we never really got going in multi. There were a few no brainers out there that for one reason or another we skipped over, while playing through ones we never should have touched (Serious Sam 2).
Although, if I'm being completely honest, and Troy please avert your eyes here, I think Diablo might be the most overrated video game series ever. I used to think that of Halo, but they vastly improved themselves with each new version. It was just so repetitive and got so boring. Torchwood was smart about this and made levels/enemies/items randomize in far better ways. I think that had everything to do with not multiing it.
To contrast, TF2 was fun, fun, fun for a LOT longer because even though the levels were the same, the experience was different each time. I've been in a NCAA Football league for over a year now, and we've all even moved to the new version, because it's a blast. Sure, it's just football, over and over, but each game is different and it never gets stale. The RTS games we played were all great fun, and had so much variety that each game was a new challenge. I still remember so many moments from those battles. I know we multied Diablo II at least a handful of times, but I remember none of them. That type of game just doesn't lend itself to amazing moments.
Let's see if Diablo III can actually bring something new to the table that Torchwood hasn't already invented...
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:19 am
by TPRJones
I'm confused about your TF2 rant. Buying hats is stupid, sure, but considering that the hats have no game effects how does that destroy the game? You reference bullet-proof hats, but there are no such things in TF2 and never have been. Sure, some people think some of the "new" weapons might be a little unbalanced, but I have yet to find one that people can generally agree on being unbalanced that hasn't quickly been fixed by Valve.
Also, releases from Valve are still a big deal. There are some times when they'll push out community made items without much fanfare, but if it's coming from Valve developers, it gets to be a thing.
In the end, there is no reason at all to put any money into TF2 for items. They don't give you any sort of edge (except maybe temporarily for at most a day due to release of a misbalanced item that will quickly be tweaked), and they don't give anyone else an edge that you have to "keep up with" either. So I just don't understand the ire there.
More on topic, I do think it's a shame that they're killing the potential of a modding community for Diablo III. Modding is a huge deal these days when it comes to giving a game a long lifespan. Without modding and mapping and community items, TF2 would be long past dead. The same is true for many many such games. I can understand the need for security if they want to have an items market, but they won't need the items market very long if people get bored with it quickly. Which they will without the fresh modding content to keep the game alive. It's a damned-either-way sort of thing they've put themselves in here.
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:31 am
by GORDON
While stupid, the hats in TF2 make it easier for a sniper to see you when you are trying to hide behind the landscape. Then it's all like BOOM HEADSHOT because I could still see your glowing halo as you were hiding behind a boulder.
I always try outfit myself in stuff that blends with the landscape. Let the fucktard next to me get sniped instead because he wanted to wear a big tophat and was an easier target than me.
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:47 am
by Leisher
I'm confused about your TF2 rant. Buying hats is stupid, sure, but considering that the hats have no game effects how does that destroy the game? You reference bullet-proof hats, but there are no such things in TF2 and never have been. Sure, some people think some of the "new" weapons might be a little unbalanced, but I have yet to find one that people can generally agree on being unbalanced that hasn't quickly been fixed by Valve.
Sorry, that's my fault. I was simply making a point about how microtransactions can affect the balance of a game, and totally made up the bulletproof hat thing as an example. When I wrote that I was trying to remember complaints I had heard about a console FPS, and how people who bought certain powerups needed to be headshot twice instead of the normal once, and how other people were quitting the game because of it.
It's that sort of bullshit I was trying to point out.
I should have stuck to Zynga games to make this point as they are far more transparent and easy to point out. As an example, in their game Empires & Allies you can make purchases to vastly increase the hit points your units have. you could face the exact same unit owned by a non-paying opponent and see that your "paid for" unit has twice as many hit points.
However, this sort of imbalance isn't even the biggest complaint about microtransactions. The biggest complaint is from people who don't want to pay full price for a game, and then then have to turn around and pay even more for items and features that should have been in the game upon release. (A particularly bigger issue with single player games.)
In the end, there is no reason at all to put any money into TF2 for items. They don't give you any sort of edge (except maybe temporarily for at most a day due to release of a misbalanced item that will quickly be tweaked), and they don't give anyone else an edge that you have to "keep up with" either. So I just don't understand the ire there.
As I stated, I should have specified that I broke off my rant so it wasn't centralized on TF2. The ire is geared towards the microtransactions in general for all of gaming, and yes, they are changing the landscape of gaming. And perhaps my rant is a great example of how damaging they are? I haven't played TF2 since they started adding the microtransactions, but all I've seen are stupid hats and new weapons that can be bought. THAT has kept me away from the game completely and convinced me that I won't be back. Why? Because I've seen what microtransactions have done to other multigames. Who knew that TF2 was selling non-game changing items. Which begs the question, if they don't change the game, why is anyone buying them?
However, that doesn't change my opinion that TF2 has too much shit these days. There's like 9,000 hats, and no matter their effect or non-effect that sort of thing pushes gamers away because it makes them feel "late to the party". I also know that there are a bunch of new weapons. And whose choosing these updates? Where is the Pyro's update and video? (If they've done him, send me the link.)
On a different note, a smart move for Valve would be to toss original players a bone. You know, the folks who paid full price, and might have moved on? Give them a special hat or something or even a special ability for one weekend (nothing overwhelmingly powerful, maybe a 30 second invincibility that can be activated once an hour for that weekend only, and only when they have on their "OG" hat).
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 12:28 pm
by TPRJones
I can fully understand your stance, then. But I would argue it's not microtransactions that are the problem there, it's shitty implementations of microtransactions that are the problem. All because most companies do it badly doesn't mean it's not in itself a good idea.
I also agree that any game that you pay up front for shouldn't do microtransactions. That's why I was glad to see Team Fortress 2 go free-to-play after all the store stuff they've been doing. Sure, I still paid for it myself long ago, and it's always better to start out free-to-play if you are going that way instead of converting to it later, but I think they've done okay by me overall so I'm willing to overlook it. Plus free-to-play + microtransactions wasn't really on the table back when TF2 came out. I'd rather they convert the game I like than see them scrap it and start over with TF3, which may or may not be as good.
No pyro update. They've been saving it for last. I'm not sure if that's because it will be the best, or because they haven't figured out a good way to do a video with a protagonist who speaks purely in unintelligible mumbles.
As to why to buy stuff? I'm not sure. The weapons could be worth it I guess, but I prefer to wait for drops or just craft them rather than pay for them. And they DO change the game in that they have different things they do, but the balance is usually good in that weapon selection becomes a matter of preference more than a matter of power. Why buy hats? There I have no idea. At all. Complete waste of money. And yet some people will do so, and if that helps pay Valve to maintain the team that keeps making the game better so be it.
I think microtransactions (in a free-to-play game, at least) have a huge potential to be done well and make a game better rather than worse. Unfortunately many companies don't know how to do it right, don't design for it from the beginning in the game creation phase, or let management make the decisions about what gets sold and end up doing so at the detriment of the game. But it doesn't have to be that way.
EDIT: Oh, and Valve did toss old players a small bone or two. Items from before the store opened are now "Vintage". Older players got a badge showing the date they got the game. And players from before the free-to-play conversion got a hat. Nothing major, though.
Edited By TPRJones on 1312820979
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:20 pm
by Troy
The Steam game "Dungeon of Dredmor" is awesome.
It's like Nethack or any similar roguelike, but with good music, graphics, and I really like the skill system. It's also 6 bucks, and is a perfect work game.
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:22 pm
by Leisher
I can fully understand your stance, then. But I would argue it's not microtransactions that are the problem there, it's shitty implementations of microtransactions that are the problem. All because most companies do it badly doesn't mean it's not in itself a good idea.
I could get behind that line of thinking. I mean, I've already admitted as much by saying I get this sort of transaction for games like the ones Zynga makes. (Although, I must again point out that they're not overpriced, they're ridiculously overpriced.)
However, it would have to be free-to-play, and it would have to be reasonably priced.
Hell, I buy expansions to games, which are the same thing, only bigger, but ONLY when they're worth it and ONLY when the price has come down to a reasonable level.
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:03 pm
by Cakedaddy
I quit playing TF2 a long time ago. Then, out of the blue, I loaded it up and played it again. I had a ton of fun and added to the TF2 thread. Then someone reminded me why I stopped playing so long ago. It was the special weapons you got with achievements. People would start an achievement server and power them out to get the special weapons. Then they would promptly own me. Repeatedly. I didn't feel like cheating to the the weapon, and I didn't like getting owned. So I quit. They game was severely unbalanced to me.
Point is, it's not unbalanced any more. From day one (of my return), I was competitive. Even against those with the old uber weapons. Even against those with all those new things I'd never seen before. So, somewhere along the line, Valve balanced their game back out. Every new item has a strength that is offset by a weakness. My new minigun of choice does 20% more damage, but has a longer spin up time, and makes me walk a lot slower. My sniper has a shield that blocks a single back stab from a spy. But, I had to give up my machine gun to carry it. So, from a balance standpoint, Valve is doing an excellent job, in my opinion. I don't have time (or more importantly, the desire) to collect hats either. So, I don't. But I don't care that other people do. Sometimes, I like one of them and think they are funny/cool. But, I'd never take the time to collect it. I do want some of the other weapons though. I want to try them out. I'll craft them though, not buy.
I'm not against mods. I just never used them, and won't miss them. But, I can understand those that used/loved them being pissed about this decision. It may drive many of them to wait for a massive price drop before buying being that the life of the game will be shorter for them.
And as stated, we did get a bone. A very insignificant and useless one. But one none the less. It's a friggin' hat. I'd rather have had some store credit to buy some keys to open these crates I have piling up.
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:08 pm
by GORDON
You know, Team Fortress Classic was a Half Life mod, as was Counterstrike. Counterstrike may have even been a Quake mod... don't remember.
You've used mods.
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2011 6:22 pm
by Cakedaddy
That's true. The HL engine IS one game that I've used many mods. I had a few on HL and a few more on HL:Source. CouterStrike and Insurgency are two of my most played games.
But, I still would have bought HL2 without the mods. And HL1 for that matter.
But again, I'm not supporting Blizzards no mod choice. I simply stated that I wouldn't miss them, but I understand that other people would be pretty pissed. I can see where the 'no mod' decision is probably due to their 'items for money' decision though. They have to keep the game locked down to prevent exploits. Supporting mods would mean a department would have to look at the mod and then officially accept it, etc. People couldn't just slop content up there for people to download. So, it's possible, but it hits their bottom line. Again, not supporting it. . . just saying I can understand how it's playing out. Frustration for fans, necessity for Blizzard.
In my world, I would allow items to be sold for money, via ebay and allow mods. Keeps everyone happy. Some people might get ripped off on ebay. But fuck 'em. That's the risk you take. I knew I was taking a HUGE gamble when I paid $600 for a UO account with a shit ton of houses on it back in the day. Ebay wouldn't have helped me, Origin wouldn't have, etc. I'd allow it and just say "Buyer beware. You're on your own.".
FYI: Yes, I paid $600 for a UO account. It had a tower, a large forge, a large brick and two smalls. Two weeks later, I sold ONE of the 5 houses (large forge) on that account for $650 and the account with NO houses for another $50. Towers, at the time, were selling for close to $1000 on ebay. This guy had a couple of spelling mistakes in his item description that kept the views really low, and the bids lower. We just happened to make the same spelling mistakes while searching ebay. Over the remaining years, other houses were sold at random times for another $800. One of them we gave to Kronos because he was such a huge help to us in the early days of the game. Way later, I sold the two houses we placed in Trammel as well. One for $480 and the other for $275. We sold random in game items as well. Once, we sold a ridable lama for a few dollars. Funny thing was, we received an email from a concerned citizen saying that lamas should not be ridden as their backs aren't made for carrying loads and we would hurt the animal. I guess the fact that the ad had a cartoon animal didn't click with the person. Anyway, that's how the $600 purchase played out.
Actual ebay feedback!
This is an EXCELLENT Ebay User VERY FAST contact and trade Thank you MAYDCHEN
Transfer went smoothly, no complaints
delivery within seconds of making payment now that's fast A++++++++++
A wonderful seller, quick, easy, and friendly. No one's better than Maydchen.
maydchen was great! this guy is GOOD!
Good Trustful UO Dealer....Will Deal With Again....
Superfast shipment...Great sandals!! Thanks again...A+++
Maydchen was my wife's UO character. The good old days. . . People bought sandals that you got off mages in the fire dungeon. . . easy money.
So, ya, I like being able to trade in game items for money.
Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:40 am
by Leisher
Why Blizzard is avoiding an offline mode.
“There’s two basic problems with us doing that,” said Wilson. “One is players default immediately to that. So, they basically unintentionally opt out of all the cooperative experience, all the trading experience, and the core of Diablo is a circle-trading game. So for us we’ve always viewed it as an online game – the game’s not really being played right if it’s not online, so when we have that specific question of why are we allowing it? Because that’s the best experience, why would you want it any other way?”
Well that's just a whole bucket of retard isn't it?
Apparently Diablo's designers think their consumers are so stupid, that they can't figure out how to play the game online without being forced to play it that way.
FYI: A little game called Torchwood blows the rest of this idiot's statement out of the water.
Don't tell me I'm playing your game wrong just because I don't want to play online or multi. That makes you look like a jackass.
Instead, just try [url=http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/08/11/id-creative-director-on-diablo-3s-lack-of-offline-play-in-the-end-its-better-for-everybody
/]being honest about why you're making Diablo III online only.[/url]
I've lost some respect for Blizzard over this fiasco. I hate it when companies insult their customers twice by lying, and because the lie inevitably holds an unintentional insult, instead of just being honest. Just be honest, and I might get pissed, but I will understand.
Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:21 am
by Troy
Torchwood was boring.
I was going to be playing Diablo online the whole time anyway, so big "meh".