Page 2 of 6

Re: Diablo III

PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 6:56 am
by knolli
Zupponn wrote:Some of the graphics and some of the AI calculations are done server side.


That would mean that in the more rural areas, where the internet connectivity isn't that good, the game would be nearly impossible to play.
But I have to buy a new PC anyway before I can even think about playing DIII.

Re: Diablo III

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 12:04 am
by OneEye589
I'm running it on my year-old laptop perfectly fine. Granted, all the settings are the lowest or second to lowest, but it's been going great.

I have a level 40 barbarian (who stomps them into where he's centered and then Revenges them for health), a level 25 demon hunter (with the Chain Gang glyph, Rapid Fire, and stealth getaway moves), and a level 15 wizard who's for use strictly with a group of friends.

It's really fun so far. The auction house has been down the past day, so that kind of sucks. I'm redownloading D2 as we speak, also.

Re: Diablo III

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 1:57 pm
by feuer_faust
Graphically, the game is nice and is not too gruelling (I'm using some three-to-four-year-old parts and doing alright). HOWEVER: the lack of the offline single player kind of kills it for me. My internet connection can be spotty, and during the first week or so the servers were having issues which meant I couldn't even log in and show my skeptical roomate gameplay and characters. For 60 bucks, I don't really think the game's worth it. 30-40, maybe.

The "dumbed down" gameplay that people are complaining about I think is a lie. The game plays as a dungeon crawler should, and the "lack of choice" is also a non-issue. You get plenty of choice, without having to incrementally build up bonuses. Honestly, both ways work fine (you never use more than half a dozen thingies normally anyways).

That said, Torchlight 2 is coming out in a few weeks. 20 bucks, offline single player, and developer mod support. It even kinda looks like Iron Kingdoms. :P

Re: Diablo III

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 3:54 pm
by OneEye589
No single player is fine for most people though. I know I'm a social gamer, and I don't really play much unless my friends are playing. For an MMO, it seems reasonable for them to not include single player. And hey, you still bought it. If it wasn't worth the money due to lack of single player, you shouldn't have bought it.

Re: Diablo III

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 3:55 pm
by OneEye589
I mean, people buying it and then complaining about things that it doesn't have kind of defeats the purpose and makes them just continue to get away with things. It's what happened with Call of Duty. Everyone still bought it, even though it's just the same thing over and over again, then people complain that it's the same thing after buying it. Game companies are gonna do whatever they can get away with as long as it still makes them money.

Re: Diablo III

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 4:17 pm
by stubby
OneEye589 wrote:If it wasn't worth the money due to lack of single player, you shouldn't have bought it.

Which is the very reason I'm sitting here not playing Diablo III.  I'm a firm believer in not giving money to people who irritate me.

All right, that's a lie.  Even if it wasn't for the stupid online part, I still wouldn't be paying money for Diablo III because Bobby Kotick.

Re: Diablo III

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2012 4:50 pm
by OneEye589
See, stubby's got the right idea. You don't like something, then don't keep endorsing it.

Re: Diablo III

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 1:41 am
by feuer_faust
OneEye589 wrote:No single player is fine for most people though. I know I'm a social gamer, and I don't really play much unless my friends are playing. For an MMO, it seems reasonable for them to not include single player. And hey, you still bought it. If it wasn't worth the money due to lack of single player, you shouldn't have bought it.


I feel I should clarify two things here.

6. I did not buy it. A friend let me use their guest pass. I specifically am not planning on buying it.

7. Diablo has always had single player. Hell, playing multiplayer over Battle.net was a cool, optional thing. Not having the offline single player is more-or-less was has cemented my above point: I am very much a single player kind of guy.

Re: Diablo III

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 2:12 am
by OneEye589
Ah, see, I thought you bought it. Good man.

Saying that Diablo always had single player is kind of hollow though. I mean, back then not as many people played online, or even had the internet. When I first got Diablo II we didn't have internet capable of playing D2 on. Nowadays, most people have internet that could run it, and since that's a majority of the market, Blizzard decided "Hey, we can keep everyone from pirating it AND not even upset our main audience." Obviously, it worked.

Re: Diablo III

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 3:21 am
by knolli
OneEye589 wrote:Ah, see, I thought you bought it. Good man.

Saying that Diablo always had single player is kind of hollow though. I mean, back then not as many people played online, or even had the internet. When I first got Diablo II we didn't have internet capable of playing D2 on. Nowadays, most people have internet that could run it, and since that's a majority of the market, Blizzard decided "Hey, we can keep everyone from pirating it AND not even upset our main audience." Obviously, it worked.

I feel with the 20% of the players who do not have a fast connection to the web.

Re: Diablo III

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 11:00 am
by Tzan
If I based every purchase on what craziness some evil corporation did or didn't do, I would be naked and homeless.

Re: Diablo III

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 11:25 am
by OneEye589
knolli wrote:I feel with the 20% of the players who do not have a fast connection to the web.

Well, not anymore. They won't be players unless they have a fast connection.

According to the Nielsen Company, 80% of homes have computers, and 92% of that have internet access in the US. Supposedly 230 million people have access to the internet in the United States.

Even if only 75% of people have a fast enough connection, which I would guess to be close to the truth but wouldn't be surprised if it were higher, that leaves an open market of about 170 million people in the US. Sounds pretty good to me.

Then the people who would actually play this game are gamers. They're going to have internet access that's fast.

EDIT: Fixed numbers because I'm a dumbass.

Re: Diablo III

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 1:20 pm
by knolli
I could easily name up to five counterexamples. People who would play if they had the chance but can't because "their internet" is too slow or they have none at all for whatever reason. Loss on both ends, I'd say.

Re: Diablo III

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 1:37 pm
by The Shadowscythe
OneEye589 wrote:Supposedly more than 5 billion people have access to the internet in the United States.


So now over two thirds of the worlds population are living in the U.S?

Wow you lot are fucking dumb.

Re: Diablo III

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2012 1:49 pm
by IVhorseman
Hell, even Starcraft II had an offline single player mode.