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.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
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...
Last edited by Witchblade77; 2022-07-16 at 03:58 AM.
• Diablo Immortal is the most misunderstood and underrated game of all time!
• Blizzard, please, give us some end-game focused Classic servers, where you start at max level!
• Serious Completionist: 100% OW Achievements, 100% D3 Achievements, 90% Immortal Achievements, 99% ATT Classic, ~90% ATT Retail
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.
Last edited by Elim Garak; 2022-07-16 at 03:24 PM.
All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side
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.
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.
"We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." ― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
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 - - -
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.
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.
"We're more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see." ― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
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".
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!)
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.
All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side
If a mother is truly a fan of the art - yes, if she's nice and biased because it's her child's art - that's different - and we cannot distinguish the two - so this marginal exception should be ignored. But I fully expected some of the residents here to reduce it to that and think it's a valid point to point out.
Now switch on your brains and look at it from a broader perspective.
All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side