Oh Blizzard, how you have fallen (Diablo Immortal).

[Blackcoffin]

This is the one that always gets me the most. Like there's some single, pure measurement of what a singer is.

She's singing to entertain people. Well, and to make money. If she succeeds in those goals as a singer, then she's good at that.

You can say, "But Bovinity, she doesn't measure high enough on this measurement of vocal range, so she can't be a good singer!" or something. It's like saying that a Monet isn't a good painting because it's not photorealistic and that's the only "good" form of painting.

Does that mean that I like everything that's popular? Of course not, just because I recognize that something is good or successful at it's goals doesn't mean I like it. But me not liking it doesn't automatically make it "bad", either.

I suppose that ultimately this is really just a debate on art, though, and that generally goes nowhere.

Ofcourse, because the parameters on which we judge something is preferential - as you seem to agree with, is subjective. But when a guy unironically says:

The monetization system is objectively good for ALL participants. Otherwise they wouldn't participate.

I just can't help myself to not engage.

[Ghost of Cow]

Ofcourse, because the parameters on which we judge something is preferential - as you seem to agree with, is subjective. But when a guy unironically says:

I just can't help myself to not engage.

Well, good for the participants is a pretty big problem in the first place. It's no longer even just a subjective valuation, it's stating an objective fact about the experiences of each individual and of course that's just nonsense to even try to talk about.

So yeah, it's pretty silly.

[RobertoCarlos]

This is the one that always gets me the most. Like there's some single, pure measurement of what a singer is.

She's singing to entertain people. Well, and to make money. If she succeeds in those goals as a singer, then she's good at that.

You can say, "But Bovinity, she doesn't measure high enough on this measurement of vocal range, so she can't be a good singer!" or something. It's like saying that a Monet isn't a good painting because it's not photorealistic and that's the only "good" form of painting.

Does that mean that I like everything that's popular? Of course not, just because I recognize that something is good or successful at it's goals doesn't mean I like it. But me not liking it doesn't automatically make it "bad", either.

I suppose that ultimately this is really just a debate on art, though, and that generally goes nowhere.

You mean britney spears who looked like susan boyle in her prime and totally didnt use the sexual imagery of a school girl to launch her career?

That singer?

yeah it was her vocal talent that made her successful. Rofl.

[Kyanion]

Addressing what? I said you can do all the content, not get BiS items.

You cannot access an entire system in the game unless you pay. That means you can not do all the content.

[Cthulhu 2020]

You're mistaking "Success" with "Good" here. Two things that are in no way, shape, or form inherently connected.

I've noticed that throughout this thread. The reviews absolute eviscerate this game. Even the "professional critics" (LOL) gave it a shit score. Any score below 80 from professional critics is pretty definitively pointing to a game being badly designed, considering how generous critics tend to be. If your game can't score above an 80 from people who gets sucked off by AAA studios to give good scores, what the fuck even is the point of playing the game?

It's hilarious that some people think something making money is in any way a barometer of success. Diablo Immortal didn't even make much money by mobile game standards despite how the sky was the limit for spending. In nearly every metric, Diablo Immortal is a bad game and a failure.

[Witchblade77]

You mean britney spears who looked like susan boyle in her prime and totally didnt use the sexual imagery of a school girl to launch her career?

That singer?

yeah it was her vocal talent that made her successful. Rofl.

ok I have to at least defend Britney. her LABEL. her LABEL styled her that way and made her sing in a register that is not even normal for her voice because they wanted her to project a certain image. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW-X9zF_S1c (she is an alto not a soprano) She IS in fact talented and she does in fact have vocal ability and can dance decently enough to put on a good performance.. that is when she was not being made to perform while going through mental trauma and all that other "fun" stuff.

we really do not need to pit singers against one another and only the best one is allowed to be called good and the rest are bad. nuance and shades of gray in between ARE a thing.

and its kinda what makes DI so insidious. its not unequivocally bad. it DOES have good parts. too bad that those good parts exist almost solely to funnel players into spending money (speaking of accessing content - good luck catching up on gearing to be able to do second both in Hellquary without buying crests to get your resonance and therefore cr up - while even grinding has caps and the only thing that does NOT have caps is running 10 crest rifts), but those good parts ARE there.

edited to add - you know Britney Spears is actualy a good comparison after all. since a corporation took something that had such potential and turned it into a "product" designed solely to generate maximum income while in a process making all that potential - worse. artists, developers, writers behind diablo immortal? they had something there. those good parts, bones of them are still in game. twisted into a vehicle to sell sell SELL...

[Battlebeard]

I've noticed that throughout this thread. The reviews absolute eviscerate this game. Even the "professional critics" (LOL) gave it a shit score. Any score below 80 from professional critics is pretty definitively pointing to a game being badly designed, considering how generous critics tend to be. If your game can't score above an 80 from people who gets sucked off by AAA studios to give good scores, what the fuck even is the point of playing the game?

It's hilarious that some people think something making money is in any way a barometer of success. Diablo Immortal didn't even make much money by mobile game standards despite how the sky was the limit for spending. In nearly every metric, Diablo Immortal is a bad game and a failure.

I am 100% sure that if this game had a monetization system that people liked, this game would be rated super high, probably the highest of any Diablo game.

[Aliven]

ok I have to at least defend Britney. her LABEL. her LABEL styled her that way and made her sing in a register that is not even normal for her voice because they wanted her to project a certain image. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW-X9zF_S1c (she is an alto not a soprano) She IS in fact talented and she does in fact have vocal ability and can dance decently enough to put on a good performance.. that is when she was not being made to perform while going through mental trauma and all that other "fun" stuff.

we really do not need to pit singers against one another and only the best one is allowed to be called good and the rest are bad. nuance and shades of gray in between ARE a thing.

and its kinda what makes DI so insidious. its not unequivocally bad. it DOES have good parts. too bad that those good parts exist almost solely to funnel players into spending money (speaking of accessing content - good luck catching up on gearing to be able to do second both in Hellquary without buying crests to get your resonance and therefore cr up - while even grinding has caps and the only thing that does NOT have caps is running 10 crest rifts), but those good parts ARE there.

edited to add - you know Britney Spears is actualy a good comparison after all. since a corporation took something that had such potential and turned it into a "product" designed solely to generate maximum income while in a process making all that potential - worse. artists, developers, writers behind diablo immortal? they had something there. those good parts, bones of them are still in game. twisted into a vehicle to sell sell SELL...

Why make boring and ugly trap?

[Ghost of Cow]

It's hilarious that some people think something making money is in any way a barometer of success.

Nice signature line, if nothing else.

[Elim Garak]

You're mistaking "Success" with "Good" here. Two things that are in no way, shape, or form inherently connected.

Wrong. Success is a derivative from talent (and luck), talent == good. She's talented and good, I don't want to say lucky considering her personal life situation but business wise she was since young age.
If her product is not to your liking - it's a matter of taste. She's objectively GOOD at what she does and her fans like her, and she has many.

I'm pretty sure you are able to recognize talent even if you are not particularly fond of its particular application.

[Witchblade77]

Why make boring and ugly trap?

why indeed. but call me idealistic, but I'm reasonably sure that devs responsible for individual bits of the game - the good bits? did not have it as a trap in mind, they just wanted to make a good game. its why the trap works as well as it does. a trap that is too intentional - is also too obvious and ergo not as effective. but that's just my opinion.

and its why the point at which the game starts to become tedious and frustrating were so jarring to me anyways.

[Aucald]

Britney Spears is objectively a good singer and performer. Kardashians are good entertainment. Gwyneth Paltrow is a good actress.

No. Singing, performing, entertaining, and acting are forms or different types of art, and art is always subjective to the person experiencing it. There's no such thing as an "objectively good" form of art any more than there's an objectively good color palette or flavor.

You're confusing popularity with objectivity, or else you're unaware that other perspectives exist beyond your own.

[Ghost of Cow]

No. Singing, performing, entertaining, and acting are forms or different types of art, and art is always subjective to the person experiencing it. There's no such thing as an "objectively good" form of art any more than there's an objectively good color palette or flavor.

You're confusing popularity with objectivity, or else you're unaware that other perspectives exist beyond your own.

Pretty sure everyone in this discussion has been using different definitions of "good" anyway.

I think I've seen "morally good", "objectively good", "good because I like it" and "good because technically superior" all used in the same exchange now.

- - - Updated - - -

and its why the point at which the game starts to become tedious and frustrating were so jarring to me anyways.

Honestly, that always happens to me in loot farm games anyway. Eventually you hit that wall where they tell you, "Ok, now you get one upgrade a week if you're lucky and farm all day." and that's when I just check out.

[Aucald]

Pretty sure everyone in this discussion has been using different definitions of "good" anyway.

I think I've seen "morally good", "objectively good", "good because I like it" and "good because technically superior" all used in the same exchange now.

Nothing wrong with qualified derivations of good as long as they have some backing or explanation behind them, and at least a discussion can be had as to the merits of such judgments. When one starts throwing around terms like "objectively" then they're trying to end conversations, and in this case, via a stark category error.

[Kyanion]

I am 100% sure that if this game had a monetization system that people liked, this game would be rated super high, probably the highest of any Diablo game.

Too bad the monetization is shitty and is tied to the game. Also, if it was not so tied I don't think it would be the highest of any Diablo game as far as ratings go, but it is really pointless to speculate on such a claim. To me it is just a watered down Diablo 3 and as you progress in the game you find that running set dungeons over and over as you progress in hell difficulty isn't exactly.... "fun".

[RobertoCarlos]

Even if the game didnt have toxic and imo should be illegal level of microtransaction there is no way in literal hell the game would rank higher than the predecessors that made the IP into a giant to be exploited in the first place.

[Ghost of Cow]

Even if the game didnt have toxic and imo should be illegal level of microtransaction there is no way in literal hell the game would rank higher than the predecessors that made the IP into a giant to be exploited in the first place.

Well, to be fair, just because a game was revolutionary and genre-defining in X year doesn't mean it's better than games in X+20 year.

There are tons of games on which genres we know today were built on that people wouldn't want to touch with a 10-foot pole today. D2, for example, just...isn't much fun to me today. I played it for hours and hours without end at the time, but I just can't get into it today. Same with a lot of games that I played as a kid. (With few exceptions. I loaded up World of Xeen the other day and it was actually really fun, go figure!)

[Witchblade77]

Even if the game didnt have toxic and imo should be illegal level of microtransaction there is no way in literal hell the game would rank higher than the predecessors that made the IP into a giant to be exploited in the first place.

probably not. its a competent game, but its not without its issues. a lot of the quests are repetitive. zones are really small forcing group content at hell levels is questionable IMO. crafting, which was one of my favorite parts of D3 is all but gone. I'm not 100% sure if severely limited time windows to do specific content is because of monetanization or its own thing, but IMO its a terrible bit of design. PC UI needs work.

that said it would get much better reviews/reception without the degree of monetization it got. blizzard pushed way WAY too far there.

[Elim Garak]

You're confusing popularity with objectivity, or else you're unaware that other perspectives exist beyond your own.

You are confusing talent/skill with the art. So no wonder you think this is about popularity. Though I never posited that the number of fans matters. Even if an artist has one fan - they are talented and good. Their art is just very very niche.

[RobertoCarlos]

You are confusing talent/skill with the art. So no wonder you think this is about popularity. Though I never posited that the number of fans matters. Even if an artist has one fan - they are talented and good. Their art is just very very niche.

So every artist with a living mother is talented and good?

Thats quite the take.