Thread: I miss D2

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    120 hours of gameplay, apparently not worth 50$. Most games give you 6-12 hours. Hmmm. As I've said many, many times, people's logic seems to go awol with this game, especially when doing time/cash value. If someone plays a game for over 10 hours, they can't claim to hate it. Unless 90% of the D3 audience are just sadists, forcing themselves through the game that they claim to hate.
    So what's the magic time limit you're permitted to do something you dislike before you're not allowed to dislike it anymore? Am I allowed to say I hate a movie I watched, because I was actually willing to see the entire thing? Or does sitting there watching it for 2 hours either make me a masochist (one who enjoys receiving pain; a sadist is one who enjoys inflicting pain, though you might have been thinking of a sado-masochist, who enjoys both or enjoys hurting himself) or disqualify me from hating the movie?

    Diablo 3 is a game that people had expectations for... right or wrong, one of those things was an endgame that would be enjoyable for a long period of time, as many people found Diablo 2's endgame. Catch is, you can't even see what Inferno is like until you've played and beaten Normal, Nightmare, and Hell, a task which probably takes most people well over 10 hours. So by your logic, by the time someone has played enough of the game to actually see what the endgame is like, they're no longer allowed to claim they hate it, even if the endgame is what they were looking forward to.

    They aren't masochists, but WoW and Diablo 3 both require you to play for a very long time just to get to the parts of the game that you want to play. That doesn't mean you necessarily enjoy it if you play long enough to get to the endgame, that means that even if you dislike it you continue to play in the hopes of an eventual payoff... and for most people, the more time and effort you put into getting that payoff, the more bitter and frustrated you'll be if it never happens. So seeing people that played long enough to actually get into the endgame, see what it's like, and then turn around and say they hate the game is perfectly logical (even if the enjoyed the game until max level).

    *shrug* I don't mind D3 too much, though my internet and Blizzard's servers together are too laggy for it to be playable, something I blame entirely on Blizzard for two reasons.
    1) While I suffer lag with any online game, the lag I suffer with Blizzard games is worse than that I suffer with any other online game (and it's consistent in WoW, SC2, and D3), so even if it's not solely their servers, there's something wrong there that isn't wrong elsewhere.
    2) Blizzard made the decision to require an internet connection to play, something that provides me literally zero benefit, so even if the internet problem were entirely on my end (and Guild Wars 2 and Torchlight 2, among many others, prove it's not), it's still their fault that the internet connection is a problem at all.

    So I stopped playing D3 and started playing Torchlight 2 instead... and as a result, I doubt I'll buy the D3 xpac when it comes out. I put many hours into D3, and did enjoy it while I played it and it worked.... but I still wound up feeling very disappointed by the game, and would not recommend it to others.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    120 hours of gameplay, apparently not worth 50$
    It's $60, and the person you quoted said no such thing. Not sure what you're reading into what he wrote, but his point was that once he beat the game, he had no desire to keep playing the game. Nowhere did he say that the game wasn't worth what he paid for it.

    People assume so much on these boards. Is it because they've got this bottled up argument that they're just dying to get out? You couldn't wait to spew out your "you played it so you must like it" thing and so you jammed it against the first post you could wedge a reply into.

    Someone says they couldn't find any replayability in the game and suddenly you assume it means he hated the whole thing. Someone else criticizes one aspect of one game and they must be a "Blizzard hater". Another person sticks up in defense of a singular aspect they enjoyed and suddenly they're a fanyboy.

    People need to learn to read what's written and stop adding their own thoughts and ideas to what someone "must" mean.

    Most games give you 6-12 hours. Hmmm.
    What kind of shitty games are you playing? I'd revolt if I dropped $60 on a game that lasted 6 hours.

    If someone plays a game for over 10 hours, they can't claim to hate it. Unless 90% of the D3 audience are just sadists, forcing themselves through the game that they claim to hate.
    It's really people like you whose "logic goes AWOL". Someone types "there is no end game" and you read "I hated this entire game and Blizzard can burn in hell". That's not logical. That's delusional.

    Someone writes, "I didn't like aspect A", someone else writes "I didn't like aspect B" and a third person writes "I didn't like aspect C". And you think to yourself, "Well, that's pretty much the whole game. Everyone must hate everything about the whole game. I'm going to post asking why they even play it then." That's not logical. That's delusional.

    Few, if any, posters here are claiming to "hate" the game. Separate people are criticizing aspects of the game based on their own independent opinions. There is nothing wrong with this.

    Lastly, this "you must like the game if you play more than 10 hours" is stupid. Because the next knuckledragger will say, "You only played 10 hours? You didn't really even experience the game since you only got to level 40 and didn't do Inferno." Further, I must point out AGAIN, that a person saying they didn't like one aspect of the game is not the same as a person saying they didn't like the whole game.
    Last edited by Firecrest; 2012-10-08 at 03:24 PM.
    <WHAR LEWTS PLZ HALp>
    I'm bitter by default. Don't take it personally.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stir View Post
    Either give an argument, or be automatically wrong. Your choice.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by darkwarrior42 View Post
    So what's the magic time limit you're permitted to do something you dislike before you're not allowed to dislike it anymore? Am I allowed to say I hate a movie I watched, because I was actually willing to see the entire thing? Or does sitting there watching it for 2 hours either make me a masochist (one who enjoys receiving pain; a sadist is one who enjoys inflicting pain, though you might have been thinking of a sado-masochist, who enjoys both or enjoys hurting himself) or disqualify me from hating the movie?

    Diablo 3 is a game that people had expectations for... right or wrong, one of those things was an endgame that would be enjoyable for a long period of time, as many people found Diablo 2's endgame. Catch is, you can't even see what Inferno is like until you've played and beaten Normal, Nightmare, and Hell, a task which probably takes most people well over 10 hours. So by your logic, by the time someone has played enough of the game to actually see what the endgame is like, they're no longer allowed to claim they hate it, even if the endgame is what they were looking forward to.

    They aren't masochists, but WoW and Diablo 3 both require you to play for a very long time just to get to the parts of the game that you want to play. That doesn't mean you necessarily enjoy it if you play long enough to get to the endgame, that means that even if you dislike it you continue to play in the hopes of an eventual payoff... and for most people, the more time and effort you put into getting that payoff, the more bitter and frustrated you'll be if it never happens. So seeing people that played long enough to actually get into the endgame, see what it's like, and then turn around and say they hate the game is perfectly logical (even if the enjoyed the game until max level).

    *shrug* I don't mind D3 too much, though my internet and Blizzard's servers together are too laggy for it to be playable, something I blame entirely on Blizzard for two reasons.
    1) While I suffer lag with any online game, the lag I suffer with Blizzard games is worse than that I suffer with any other online game (and it's consistent in WoW, SC2, and D3), so even if it's not solely their servers, there's something wrong there that isn't wrong elsewhere.
    2) Blizzard made the decision to require an internet connection to play, something that provides me literally zero benefit, so even if the internet problem were entirely on my end (and Guild Wars 2 and Torchlight 2, among many others, prove it's not), it's still their fault that the internet connection is a problem at all.

    So I stopped playing D3 and started playing Torchlight 2 instead... and as a result, I doubt I'll buy the D3 xpac when it comes out. I put many hours into D3, and did enjoy it while I played it and it worked.... but I still wound up feeling very disappointed by the game, and would not recommend it to others.
    Thanks for pointing out the slip on my part; I did indeed mean masochists. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that someone would *want* to suffer through 100 hours of something they don't like. It's not a job - you're not getting paid to be there. It's a game - you're actively choosing to play it, assumably to have fun? It only takes about 10-20 hours total to get to Diablo 3 Inferno. That's if you play like I did, taking your time, finding all the quests, exploring every inch of the map, etc.

    That means people in general are spending 80-180 hours hating a game, yet playing it anyway. How can that make any kind of sense? You can discern within a matter of hours whether Inferno is going to be something you'll like or not, it's very bluntly obvious what it's going to be like as soon as you get part way through Act 1 or into Act 2.

    It's like watching a tv series and not minding the first season, then you watch the second season and like it even less, despite it showing all the signs of continuing in the same direction, you continue to watch another 8 seasons, hating it more and more as it goes on. Yet, for some reason, you won't change the channel, you won't stop or just think "Maybe, just maybe, this isn't for me.". Is that the kind of logic that I've got to acknowledge to understand your viewpoint?

  4. #44
    Mechagnome Sonç's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    EU - Outland
    Posts
    629
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardstyler01 View Post
    It doesn't. If you understand how bots work you would know that online only doesn't prevent anything.
    The only way to stop bots is to scan people's computers. And that is something that isn't allowed since it violates your privacy.

    I'm not saying bots are widespread. But they are out there. In fact, even duping has reemerged.

    Oh, and I agree that some things about D2 really make it better than D3.
    It's not just nostalgia, D3 improved in some areas but it also did worse in others.
    Doesn't violate your privacy if they add it in the ToS and you click agree. Other game companies do this, I think Blizzard even do it with WoW.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    That means people in general are spending 80-180 hours hating a game, yet playing it anyway.
    Who? Who is doing this? You keep assuming these people exist, but they don't. What exists is someone who put in that much time disliking a singular aspect or two, yet finding the game as a whole enjoyable enough to continue playing. The person you replied to that started this discussion in the first place said he put in his time, got to the end, found the end lacking and then quit. He is the model of what you say people aren't doing.
    <WHAR LEWTS PLZ HALp>
    I'm bitter by default. Don't take it personally.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stir View Post
    Either give an argument, or be automatically wrong. Your choice.

  6. #46
    I still like D3. But its riddled with problems.

    1/ The story is cliché and predictable. I saw every single 'twist' from a mile away. The only fun thing was convincing one of my friends that the twist wasn't coming, so when it did he was suprised. But that's it.

    2/ The voice acting is very inconsistant. Some of it is brilliant. A lot of it is awful. Skeleton King in particular needs to shut up.

    3/ No free-roaming. You have to follow the quests. Step by step. Every single time.

    4/ Stashes are too small, and combined with them being account-wide... Yeah, its constantly full. 100% of the time. And mules are very limited in use.

    5/ Crafting lacks something. You should be upgrading weapons you find (i.e. turning greys into magical), not creating them from random monster body parts. And it needs to be more viable then it is, 99% of the stuff is completely worthless.

    6/ Still no PvP. /sadface

    7/ No option to skip difficulty modes. Seriously, if I've completed Hell and I'm working on Inferno I want to be able to at least skip Normal on my alts. Please, its really boring!

    8/ No skulls alongside gems. Minor complaint.

    9/ No runewords. Minor complaint, but is probably being saved for the expansion...

    10/ Needs more customisation. Dyes are a good start at least.

  7. #47
    Warchief Kezotar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    2,200
    Random diablo 2 fact.

    It takes 1,853,020,188,851,841 El runes to make 1 zod rune. Happy hunting xD
    I7 - 4930K / 16 GB - 1600MHZ / R9 290 Core 1220 MHZ - Memory 1550 MHZ

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    120 hours of gameplay, apparently not worth 50$. Most games give you 6-12 hours. Hmmm. As I've said many, many times, people's logic seems to go awol with this game, especially when doing time/cash value. If someone plays a game for over 10 hours, they can't claim to hate it. Unless 90% of the D3 audience are just sadists, forcing themselves through the game that they claim to hate.
    I've heard this argument many times and I can't say that I agree with it. The thing is, Blizzard doesn't agree with it either; they want this game to last a long time as DII did.

    I don't think it is worth $60. I put in 250+ hours because I sorely [i]wanted[i/] this to be a game that I could play for years. Unfortunately it is not, and at one point I just couldn't force myself to login. I don't feel like I got ripped off for $60, the game just didn't come anywhere near living up to expectations (those of the players or the devs. I'm sure Activision is ok with that number of copies sold.)

    I mean, seriously; this game was in development for at least 6 freaking years! What the hell were they doing with that time? What about this game is so awesome and complex to warrant such an insanely long development cycle? On top of that, the game was pretty bad when it first came out in many, many ways. I just don't get it, they really screwed up.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Oh, I love BG1/2 as well. But that Diablo 2 hook...

    Few things were as satisfying as obliterating a screen full of baddies. Amid the viscera and carnage, the distinct sound of a rune hitting the ground would cut through it all.

    A grin from ear to ear always followed.
    Can't disagree with you, that feeling was just awesome. Diablo 2 was extremely rewarding, which is currently the biggest issue I have with Diablo 3. It's not rewarding at all.

    The thing that keeps me playing this game after killing Diablo is the desire for even better lootz! I mean, I've played for 220+ hours now, and that's pretty good for a game that cost me -80 euro.
    650ish hours here. I still play and enjoy the game as well, but I don't think it is anywhere near as good as Diablo 2: LoD. Having said that it's getting better every patch but it still has a way to go.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Firecrest View Post
    It's $60, and the person you quoted said no such thing. Not sure what you're reading into what he wrote, but his point was that once he beat the game, he had no desire to keep playing the game. Nowhere did he say that the game wasn't worth what he paid for it.

    People assume so much on these boards. Is it because they've got this bottled up argument that they're just dying to get out? You couldn't wait to spew out your "you played it so you must like it" thing and so you jammed it against the first post you could wedge a reply into.

    Someone says they couldn't find any replayability in the game and suddenly you assume it means he hated the whole thing. Someone else criticizes one aspect of one game and they must be a "Blizzard hater". Another person sticks up in defense of a singular aspect they enjoyed and suddenly they're a fanyboy.

    People need to learn to read what's written and stop adding their own thoughts and ideas to what someone "must" mean.



    What kind of shitty games are you playing? I'd revolt if I dropped $60 on a game that lasted 6 hours.



    It's really people like you whose "logic goes AWOL". Someone types "there is no end game" and you read "I hated this entire game and Blizzard can burn in hell". That's not logical. That's delusional.

    Someone writes, "I didn't like aspect A", someone else writes "I didn't like aspect B" and a third person writes "I didn't like aspect C". And you think to yourself, "Well, that's pretty much the whole game. Everyone must hate everything about the whole game. I'm going to post asking why they even play it then." That's not logical. That's delusional.

    Few, if any, posters here are claiming to "hate" the game. Separate people are criticizing aspects of the game based on their own independent opinions. There is nothing wrong with this.

    Lastly, this "you must like the game if you play more than 10 hours" is stupid. Because the next knuckledragger will say, "You only played 10 hours? You didn't really even experience the game since you only got to level 40 and didn't do Inferno." Further, I must point out AGAIN, that a person saying they didn't like one aspect of the game is not the same as a person saying they didn't like the whole game.
    Sorry, but would you either stop trying to reply to me or read the rest of the threads and posts on this board? The person I quoted finished with
    or why you would pay real money into this game.
    He played the game for 120 hours to completion and didn't think it would be worth paying actual money for. Therefore, he only played it because it was free to him. And I don't know about you, but I actually value my free time. If I don't like something, I'm not going to then spend 100+ hours playing it.

    As to
    What kind of shitty games are you playing? I'd revolt if I dropped $60 on a game that lasted 6 hours.
    , lots of games only take 6-12 hours to "beat". Not including completionist playthroughs or multiplayer.

    Who? Who is doing this? You keep assuming these people exist, but they don't. What exists is someone who put in that much time disliking a singular aspect or two, yet finding the game as a whole enjoyable enough to continue playing. The person you replied to that started this discussion in the first place said he put in his time, got to the end, found the end lacking and then quit. He is the model of what you say people aren't doing.
    Seriously, read some of the other threads on this board.

    In conclusion: It's one thing to suggest that a game is flawed. It's another thing altogether to play a game for hundreds of hours, but trying to suggest it's not worth playing. If you don't think something is worth your money, how is it possible to drop so much time into it? As I already stated, there are alternatives out there, there's no one forcing people to play this. People are playing it because they want to, then complaining about it on here all the time.

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    Sorry, but would you either stop trying to reply to me or read the rest of the threads and posts on this board? The person I quoted finished with

    or why you would pay real money into this game.
    He played the game for 120 hours to completion and didn't think it would be worth paying actual money for. Therefore, he only played it because it was free to him.
    I believe he was speaking in regards to the RMAH, not the price tag of the game itself...

    ---------- Post added 2012-10-08 at 05:52 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    In conclusion: It's one thing to suggest that a game is flawed. It's another thing altogether to play a game for hundreds of hours, but trying to suggest it's not worth playing. If you don't think something is worth your money, how is it possible to drop so much time into it? As I already stated, there are alternatives out there, there's no one forcing people to play this. People are playing it because they want to, then complaining about it on here all the time.
    It's not though, you're excluding relevant contextual information, namely; the title of this game is "Diablo", a name which means something to many of us. If this were "random ARPG #39" I seriously doubt that many of the people who dislike it would have also put in 100+ hours. I know I wouldn't have, yet here we are. We wanted to like this game, we wanted it to be successful, we wanted to play it for years.

    Unfortunately this game is a Diablo sequel in name only and misses the mark. It failed to capture (and the devs failed to appreciate) the subtle elements that made D2 so successful. It just isn't very fun to play. You cannot just ignore the fact that D3 is riding on the coat tails of the most popular ARPG ever made.
    Last edited by Biged781; 2012-10-08 at 05:59 PM.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Biged781 View Post
    I believe he was speaking in regards to the RMAH, not the price tag of the game itself...[COLOR="red"]
    Ah, re-reading it I clearly made a mistake and apologise to Talrob for making use of his comment. He actually put forwards my points in his comment - he played it through until he was done with it, then stopped. He got exactly what he wanted out of the game.

    It's not though, you're excluding relevant contextual information, namely; the title of this game is "Diablo", a name which means something to many of us. If this were "random ARPG #39" I seriously doubt that many of the people who dislike it would have also put in 100+ hours. I know I wouldn't have, yet here we are. We wanted to like this game, we wanted it to be successful, we wanted to play it for years.

    Unfortunately this game is a Diablo sequel in name only. You cannot just ignore the fact that D3 is riding on the coat tails of the most popular ARPG ever made.
    Again, regardless of what a game's called, if you don't consider it good, there's no reason to continue playing it. I didn't like Quake 3 or 4, after Quake 2 was one of the best multiplayer FPS ever released. I didn't then go playing its sequels for a hundred+ hours, despite not enjoying them as much, I simply didn't play them. I wanted them to be amazing and all, but they weren't, so I played something else. Hell, I went back and played Q2 for a long time after, rather than sitting and playing 3 when I didn't like it as much.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    Ah, re-reading it I clearly made a mistake and apologise to Talrob for making use of his comment. He actually put forwards my points in his comment - he played it through until he was done with it, then stopped. He got exactly what he wanted out of the game.
    So basically, exactly what I said in my posts to you. Posts that you responded to by questioning my reading comprehension.

    So, to recap… You started (and continue to defend) an argument saying that people are putting lots of time into a game they say they hate. And the guy who started you on this rant played the game until he decided he didn’t like it and then stopped.

    I feel the need to restate my original position. You, and lots of other people on these boards read into posts way more than what is there. You see someone criticizing some aspect of a game and assume they hate the entire thing. It’s okay for people not to like 100% of a game. And it’s okay for those people to speak up about the things they think could have been done better.

    Your whole point is that if you hate the game, don’t play it. And that’s truth. Your failing is in your assumption that people aren’t already doing just that. Just because someone has a critique, does not mean they’re playing a game they hate. They’ve either stopped playing because the cons outweighed the pros or they’re continuing to play because they like the game as a whole despite a perceived flaw here or there.
    <WHAR LEWTS PLZ HALp>
    I'm bitter by default. Don't take it personally.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stir View Post
    Either give an argument, or be automatically wrong. Your choice.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    Again, regardless of what a game's called, if you don't consider it good, there's no reason to continue playing it. I didn't like Quake 3 or 4, after Quake 2 was one of the best multiplayer FPS ever released. I didn't then go playing its sequels for a hundred+ hours, despite not enjoying them as much, I simply didn't play them. I wanted them to be amazing and all, but they weren't, so I played something else. Hell, I went back and played Q2 for a long time after, rather than sitting and playing 3 when I didn't like it as much.
    Well, I agree with you theoretically and it makes sense, but in practice there is an emotional (i.e., irrational) aspect involved. I would put D3 in the same class as a $10 dungeon crawler I donwload on (for example) XBox arcade. Sure, the battle mechanics are probably superior, but in terms of longevity and replay value, that's where I'd put it.

    However... I kept playing it, much longer than I would have played the $10 dungeon crawler. Why? I wanted D3 to be a deep game that I would continue to play for a long time. It wasn't that game, but I kept playing. I continued to watch the forums and wait for patches. With each new patch I would get excited to play again... but then, after two weeks or so, I'd be bored.

    Eventually I realized that this game was just never going to be the game I wanted it to be, so I stopped entirely. However, I kept faith for long enough to rack up 200+ hours. Anyway, that's how it went for me, and that's why I think the situation is a bit more complicated than what you make it out to be.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardstyler01 View Post
    It doesn't. If you understand how bots work you would know that online only doesn't prevent anything.
    The only way to stop bots is to scan people's computers. And that is something that isn't allowed since it violates your privacy.
    Warcraft (and probably Diablo) have something called 'Warden' that's intended to prevent bots. It's not perfect, but it does reduce the number of bots and other cheating, and it does this in part by scanning your computer, and also monitoring the network traffic produced by the game to look for anomalies. So... yeah, it's allowed and you agreed to it when you clicked 'Accept' on the terms of service. That doesn't mean there are zero bots, but it does keep the number down, generally speaking.

  16. #56
    I am Murloc! rhorle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,588
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardstyler01 View Post
    The only way to stop bots is to scan people's computers. And that is something that isn't allowed since it violates your privacy.
    Blizzard has employed scanning of computers connecting to it for years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden_%28software%29

    It doesn't violate your privacy, and it is something anyone who has agreed to the ToS and EULA has agreed to allow.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  17. #57
    I actually just returned to d2. the 800x600 resolution only hurts for the first hour on the full hd screen then I adjusted

    it's still a great game and far superior to d3 which is basically a clone, since it's made by a different team.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •