Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
LastLast
  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by GG you got me View Post
    The place they're going is no where that you want to be. And the entire point of D3's online only structure is very restrictive DRM and a way to ensure the validity of items on the RMT AH (which might as well be openly referred to as Titan Market Research AH). The mentality is no different than Ubisoft's. Blizzard's games just lend themselves to online community better.
    If you don't like it, stop buying their games. Then you won't be forced to be controlled by them. They announced their plans three years ago. Again, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerraw View Post
    If you don't like it, stop buying their games. Then you won't be forced to be controlled by them. They announced their plans three years ago. Again, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
    What indication did I give you that I had purchased Diablo 3? Or Starcraft 2 for that matter?

    Hopefully none, because I refrained from purchasing either specifically due to Blizzard's policy regarding them.

    Additionally, their current direction as a company provided ample excuse for me to close a World of Warcraft account that had otherwise been open continuously since November 2004.
    Last edited by GG you got me; 2012-05-22 at 11:58 PM.

  3. #63
    I think the real lack of "innovation" isn't so much in the franchise sequels as it is in the lack of new franchise development. I am sure "Titan" will be a new franchise.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Hraklea View Post
    RE5 still requires you to survive, and still a horror game, so it sounds like a survival horror to me.



    That's because when they change the gameplay, you label them out, like you did with RE5 because "it is a shooter". There's a lot of "medieval fantasy games where you gear up to kill a demon" that are not click spam.

    You're disconsidering technology too. Diablo 2 was fun because it was the best thing we could have. Now, we can do better.



    I'm sure we are.
    Yes, well, the object of MOST games is to survive. :P

    A survival horror game is one in which you aren't given enough ammo to kill every zombie in the place, you're supposed to use your wits and run a lot.

    You're completely missing that this is the point of the GENRE. Yeah, there are fantasy games where you gear up to kill enemies. WoW is one of them. So are most RPG's. What Diablo is is called an ARPG, or Action RPG. And most of these are click-to-move, click-to-attack, click click click. If you don't like that, then this isn't the genre for you. Fate, Torchlight, Titan Quest. These are ARPG's that require you to click to do stuff. You can't call out Diablo 3 for doing what that genre does, that's just imbecilic.

    And I'm sorry, if you think the game is all button mash, no thought put into encounters...then you haven't played the whole game. I'm sorry, but you haven't. You show your ignorance of the other difficulties with such statements.
    Once you go troll, you never reroll. -heard on cynicalbrit.com. Epic.

  5. #65
    Scarab Lord Hraklea's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    4,801
    Yes, well, the object of MOST games is to survive. :P
    No, it is not. Requirement and goal are different things.

    A survival horror game is one in which you aren't given enough ammo to kill every zombie in the place, you're supposed to use your wits and run a lot.
    So the entire RE series is not a survival horror, because I never had any problem with ammo. All REs have limited resources, if they are enough or not, that's a matter of player skill. RE5 is more player friendly than RE1, that doesn't mean RE5 is not a survival horror.

    You're completely missing that this is the point of the GENRE. [...] These are ARPG's that require you to click to do stuff. You can't call out Diablo 3 for doing what that genre does, that's just imbecilic.
    You're right, these are ARPGs that requires you to click. That doesn't mean that clicking is the only way to do ARPGs, but for some reason, you exclude any non clicking game from the ARPG genre.

    Genres are not only about the gameplay. Some are, like "FPS", some are not, like "adventure". There's nothing implicit on "ARPG" that says it has to be point and click, so saying point and click sucks doesn't mean I'm saying ARPG sucks.

    And I'm sorry, if you think the game is all button mash, no thought put into encounters...then you haven't played the whole game. I'm sorry, but you haven't. You show your ignorance of the other difficulties with such statements.
    You can check people facing rolling the game on youtube, you don't have to trust me.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Hraklea View Post
    No, it is not. Requirement and goal are different things.



    So the entire RE series is not a survival horror, because I never had any problem with ammo. All REs have limited resources, if they are enough or not, that's a matter of player skill. RE5 is more player friendly than RE1, that doesn't mean RE5 is not a survival horror.



    You're right, these are ARPGs that requires you to click. That doesn't mean that clicking is the only way to do ARPGs, but for some reason, you exclude any non clicking game from the ARPG genre.

    Genres are not only about the gameplay. Some are, like "FPS", some are not, like "adventure". There's nothing implicit on "ARPG" that says it has to be point and click, so saying point and click sucks doesn't mean I'm saying ARPG sucks.



    You can check people facing rolling the game on youtube, you don't have to trust me.
    You left out the place where I said MOST of the ARPG's are this way. There are ones like Champions of Norrath, Baldur's Gate, etc, which do not require clicking. However, since clicking the left mouse button is still a valid way to play things, and is NOT outdated, because even more games are coming out which use that method of gameplay, and they are still enjoyable...his point remains moot. A style of play is not outdated just because someone doesn't like it.

    Also, I'm sure there ARE people who have facerolled their way through it. As there are people who have died multiple times on the Skeleton King on normal. Somewhere in between those two extremes lies the majority.
    Once you go troll, you never reroll. -heard on cynicalbrit.com. Epic.

  7. #67
    Scarab Lord Hraklea's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    4,801
    and is NOT outdated, because even more games are coming out which use that method of gameplay
    I'm talking about technology, not popularity.

    A style of play is not outdated just because someone doesn't like it.
    It is outdated because we have better technology to provide the sense of action. According to you, D3 is supposed to be an ARPG.

    Also, I'm sure there ARE people who have facerolled their way through it. As there are people who have died multiple times on the Skeleton King on normal. Somewhere in between those two extremes lies the majority.
    So the majority has problems using a mouse. That's not an argument. "Some people find it hard, some people find it easy, so it has average difficulty". People with player skills are not the majority, I'm sure you know that.

    Also, a game that is designed to provide challenge to bad players is not a good game. A good game should teach people how to play and then challenge them. Diablo 3 has bad players dying to SK (according to you) and good players already facerolling the game. It failed in both extremes.

  8. #68
    High Overlord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    137
    Most innovations as I know them come with new technology. TERA was labeled as Real Action Combat. Is that innovation? I don't know.

    I haven't seen any replies regarding what they consider to be innovations. What would you consider innovation should a game add it?

    Outside of AI on the level of the Matrix and Terminators, I just don't see how games can get anymore innovated. If AI was that smart, we would all get our butts handed to us, and would never be able to solo. If AI was smart, all the mobs in the dungeon that were in your line of sight, or could hear you would run to kill you. If you were so much more overpowered than they were, and the mob itself had a certain level of intelligence, they would just run away from you. I always shake my head in disgust as I am killing a mob in a game, and there is another one just a few feet away that acts as if I am not there, and their buddy is not being killed. Of course the changes based on the expected intelligence of the mob, be it a pack animal or humanoid.

    The same lack of innovation goes for all stories/books/movies. I forget the details, but all stories can be traced back to 4 ideas or something like that.

    Innovation in video games is based on technological break throughs, money invested, time invested, the intelligence of the developers, and wishful thinking.

    On the TERA forums people are always complaining about the questing system, how it's out of date, boring, etc. I am not a creative person, and never have any ideas, so I just have no idea what could be done to make questing and leveling different from how it is now in most games.

    What are your ideas to make video games more innovated?
    Last edited by Kaillus; 2012-05-23 at 07:22 PM.

  9. #69
    Immortal Zelk's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Newcastle Upon Tyne
    Posts
    7,145
    Future innovation will most likely come from the platforms themselves, as well as the way in which games are delivered. For instance, The Wii U will open up new ways for games to be played on a console; and could lead to something great rather than a simple fad such as its predecessor. Online gaming is set to only get bigger; as can be seen through games that were traditionally single player grow multiplayer aspects e.g Mass Effect 3 and God of War: Ascension. Blizzard have taken the first steps into a gameplay experience that is solely online, and it is likely such a phenomena will only continue with other companies attempting it in the near future. Evidently the online integration was not popular everywhere, and is certainly not perfect, but I'd like to think it's going to be similar to the start of a new console and is just a shakey start which will only get better. That's not to say I want every game to have online only restrictions, as many games would not benefit from it; the only reason Diablo 3 does is that it encourages multiplayer game which is admittedly the better way to play the game ( for me anyway).

  10. #70
    Scarab Lord Hraklea's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    4,801
    On the TERA forums people are always complaining about the questing system, how it's out of date, boring, etc. I am not a creative person, and never have any ideas, so I just have no idea what could be done to make questing and leveling different from how it is now in most games.

    What are your ideas to make video games more innovated?
    I never played Tera, but as an old WoW player, here's what I think:

    - Make quests that improve you as a player rather than grinding quests that only tells you a story. Make quest that shows the player how to use their skills, how to use their different talent builds, how to optimize their rotation. You should not be required to go on WoWWiki to learn how to play - the leveling is supposed to do that.

    - Give experience based on the player learning process, not on how much he spends logged on. A mage that can't keep a mob polymorphed should not be level capped, because he's not a good mage. If you want to progress, you should pass tests that requires you to show you can handle harder challenges.

    - Remove random drops. No one likes to run the same dungeon daily during an entire week because they need that powerful weapon that never drops to defeat that boss. Badges kinda solve the problem, but most good items in WoW are drops. If you kill a Red Dragon, you could get a "Red Dragon Head", and then go to a "Red Dragon Trader" and trade it for a Red Dragon loot. Do you need 3 loots from the red dragon? So kill it three times.

    Would it make the game too easy or too short? Not if you increase the challenge.
    Would it make the game too hard? Not if you teach the players how to play.
    I could talk about this forever...

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Hraklea View Post
    Also, a game that is designed to provide challenge to bad players is not a good game. A good game should teach people how to play and then challenge them. Diablo 3 has bad players dying to SK (according to you) and good players already facerolling the game. It failed in both extremes.
    Wait, what? Bad players playing badly and good players playing well is...fail? I don't even...

    So because there are idiots who never learn and Koreans who do nothing BUT video games who beat the game easily...that makes this a bad game. I don't get you, man, I think you're just complaining for the sake of complaining.

    The learning curve was good for me. The skills and the speed at which I earned them taught me how to use them to my advantage. Dying in the game taught me to be adaptive and try new things. I'm fairly average. I'm not an incompetent moron and I'm not a pro Diablo player. And from most of the people I have played with, friends of mine, they seem to be the same. People CAN learn the game, all the stuff is there, if they choose not to learn, that's not Blizzard's fault, nor is it Blizzard's fault that there are people who do this shit for a living.
    Once you go troll, you never reroll. -heard on cynicalbrit.com. Epic.

  12. #72
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,284
    Sometimes I wish developers wouldn't try to "innovate". GTA IV is a prime example in my book. The jump from San Andreas to GTA IV was too drastic for my taste. I expecting a lot of things I loved in San Andreas (without listing them) to carry over and what Rockstar did was completely change their formula. Like Coca-Cola when try tried to push their "new coke". It was very hard for me to like the game (I didn't despite nothing being wrong with it) because I just couldn't get past how much they strayed from their previous 3 GTAs. Sometimes its okay to stick to what works.

    Another example, Madden. People complain about Madden being "the same game" every year despite acknowledging its a game that closely mimics a sport never fundamentally changes but you can't have fans playing the same version of the game for years without improving gameplay, graphics, etc. I am a football fan, I like (used to like) Madden but what killed the franchise for me was that they tried to "innovate" too much in my own personal opinion. I would have been fine with a Madden from 7 years ago but they continued to update the graphics, rosters, quality of existing mechanics. Because of the demands of the market the developers are forced to come up with gimmick like "innovations" or fans would turn on the series. Its a Catch-22 because the fans then hate the innovations and turn on the series anyway.

    Conclusion, innovation isn't always good. I don't always want new things, just a continuation of the things I love.

  13. #73
    Scarab Lord Hraklea's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    4,801
    Wait, what? Bad players playing badly and good players playing well is...fail? I don't even...
    A game that doesn't tell bad players what they are doing wrong is a bad game. A game that doesn't offer you a challenge is a bad game. It couldn't be more obvious, actually.

    So because there are idiots who never learn and Koreans who do nothing BUT video games who beat the game easily...that makes this a bad game. [...] all the stuff is there, if they choose not to learn, that's not Blizzard's fault, nor is it Blizzard's fault that there are people who do this shit for a living.
    "You play worse than me, you're an idiot!"
    "You play better than me, you're a korean virgin!"

    ...I have no answer against it that won't offend you.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Hraklea View Post
    A game that doesn't tell bad players what they are doing wrong is a bad game. A game that doesn't offer you a challenge is a bad game. It couldn't be more obvious, actually.



    "You play worse than me, you're an idiot!"
    "You play better than me, you're a korean virgin!"

    ...I have no answer against it that won't offend you.
    Buddy, I can't tell if you're trolling me or just don't know how to read.

    Clearly, I was defining extremes. Most people are not at those extremes. Learn to read, and then maybe come up with a compelling argument.
    Once you go troll, you never reroll. -heard on cynicalbrit.com. Epic.

  15. #75
    See, the problem OP is you're not asking for examples of "innovation" - you're looking for "a 100% original ground-up video game". This is why you don't see the Mario sequels as "innovative", CLEARLY the Mario games are innovative - you're looking for outright "original brand-new game".

    For your example... an innovative game is Dragon's Dogma. A game where you have an AI companion that fights with you... but when you log out you can "rent" him out to other players to join your group. That character will not only develop his skills, but also obtain new armor/ect through the battles... and players who "rent" him can actually equip him out any way they fit before sending him back to you.

    The idea of having a character that's an AI controlled companion you equip stuff in a standard action RPG isn't original... the idea of having that companion be shared with others IS innovative...

    Same thing with Portal. Portal is an FPS, but it takes the idea and builds in an interesting physics toy... THAT'S innovative!

    Innovative does NOT mean original. That's not what people mean by they wanted D3 to be more "innovative". What they meant by D3 being more innovative is to have something that EXPANDS the gameplay dramatically, particularly a game engine that's 12 years old. Collectibles in-game where you can trade them for special items, trophies you could collect and place in a small cottage of your own, weapons that have special procs that do massive effects (Fire bomb AoE, random heals, chain lightning, ect), a town where you and all other players could gather and meet, an overworld with extra stuff to do on it, Character customization for your looks, ect...

    You can still have ALL of those things, hell even a hub-city where everybody can meet in, and STILL call it Diablo.

    A game I like to showcase is Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. I find it absolutely fascinating that C:SotN is regarded as the best of the series by many, and yet that game was the one that slaughtered the MOST sacred iconic cows of the series. It was the game that completely removed standard on-rails straight-plodding level design, removed a Belmont from being the primary character, and even replaced the MOST ICONIC GAMEPLAY ELEMENT of the series... the Whip. Hell, none of the original music came back as remixes (a staple trademark of the series). It also introduced serious RPG leveling elements, item drops, familiars, metroid-style secret items hidden throughout the map, ect... That series has completely changed FOREVER when C:SotN Came out. Ironically very LITTLE of it was innovative, but it was innovative for THAT SERIES and helped re-define the gameplay experience for the series forever.

    As a friend of mine said... "Diablo III doesn't feel like a game... it feels like a content patch to Diablo II." and I have to agree with him. His problem isn't that he wanted a radical new game... he wanted Diablo gameplay that EXPANDS to meet today's game standards.

    Again, "innovative" doesn't mean "original".
    Last edited by mvaliz; 2012-05-24 at 04:02 PM.

  16. #76
    Herald of the Titans Pancaspe's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Atrahasis View Post
    Their business model is the most innovative in gaming IMO
    Atrahasis, I misjudged you. I won't make that mistake again.

    Much respect.
    @Ghostcrawler:Some advice: [My pet issue] is why there were sub losses is one of the weaker arguments players use. Players don't have that data.

  17. #77
    Scarab Lord Hraklea's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    4,801
    Clearly, I was defining extremes. Most people are not at those extremes.
    If you're only talking about extremes, what you said doesn't refute my arguments, and all you have to do is to read my old post to understand where you're wrong. You're talking about extremes, but I'm not.

    When I say that the game doesn't teach you how to play, I'm not saying that the game should be tolerant to people with 10 IQ. I'm talking about ordinary people, that starting playing games last week. Ok, you learned how to play D3 by dying and trying new things... but are you new to dungeon crawlers? Are you new to videogames? Are you new to computers? You're assuming that the "average gamer" is someone like you, but if you look outside your friend circle, you'll see that you're far above the average.

    There are people that have no idea of why they are dying to Skeleton King, and they are not morons, they are people not used to play games. The current model that we have now is that you should google "OP Monk Build D3" or access "D3 Wiki", or to come here and open a thread asking for help. It's Blizzard's job to teach how to play Blizzard's game, and no, killing a new player over and over is not "teaching".

    "The learning curve was good for me" is not how you determine if a game was well designed or not. "D3 is fun" and "D3 is well designed" are completely different things.

    I hope I made myself clear rather than sounds like a troll this time.

  18. #78
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    19,214
    Quote Originally Posted by Pancaspe View Post
    Atrahasis, I misjudged you. I won't make that mistake again.

    Much respect.
    Well thank you. I should clarify from a purely Business standpoint I agree with what they do, it makes total sense. As a consumer and gamer I have many reservations however.

  19. #79
    The Unstoppable Force
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Where Thrall and the Horde needs me to be
    Posts
    23,561
    Quote Originally Posted by Atrahasis View Post
    Blizzard does have plans alright. D3 was just to good of an opportunity for them to pass it up. Everyone was gonna buy it, it's diablo 3 so they can ram this shit down peoples throats and watch them get brow beat by their peers and kids on forums who white knight the shit out of the them. Not you the guy I quoted, just in general. They saw the opportunity to pass something that people would normally get really upset about (and stilll a few did) because they knew they had the name Diablo attached to something it would sell like hot cakes regardless of what nasty shit they put i n it.
    How is this different from any big company? Honestly, you could replace the word Blizzard with Bioware, EA, Apple or Microsoft. People. Wants. Money.

    Amazing sig, done by mighty Lokann

  20. #80
    This, espcially on the real consoles (not handheld)

Posting Permissions

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