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

[Nymrohd]

so basically either boring mindless grind or hope you will be online at the right time to play something other then boring mindless grind and get lucky enough to not go up against people who spent more money then you did.

and no in my experience gear matters as much if not more then build does. because your gear determines both how hard you hit AND how hard you GET hit.

P.S. the fact that the normal strategy for vault now is for shadows not to complete it and for immortals to not even get to participate at all because shadows understandably don't even try to complete it... is not a good design. and the issue, once again stems from disparity created by monetization.

Yeah the Vault design is just stupid. You can do first three floors and get 60% or you can try floor 4 and if Immortals kill you everything is lost so why risk it? Really as an immortal, 95% of the times I get to defend its a bunch of noobs who did not know they should skip and we murder them with ease and 5% it's the top shadows who will eventually unseat us and they pretty much are prepared and murder us since they are just waiting there for us to spawn with all CDs and everything rdy.

[PC2]

so basically either boring mindless grind or hope you will be online at the right time to play something other then boring mindless grind and get lucky enough to not go up against people who spent more money then you did.

Many videogames are just about killing an endless stream of monsters. That's fun so I don't understand why some gamers call it "grinding".

[KrayZ33]

DI is not a scam game and it's profitable therefore it's good.

You forgot to add *for blizzard

I can't believe you complain about people deciding what is good or bad and then think you can do it yourself.
It's so dumb.

There is no objectivity in what is good or bad, ever.
Your evaluation of it doesn't change it either and just makes you sound like a blizzard-shill.

A troll is what you are.... nothing more.

[Elim Garak]

You forgot to add *for blizzard

Why would I add that?

Being a good game includes that right beside "for players".

[KrayZ33]

Why would I add that?

Being a good game includes that right beside "for players".

Because otherwise your statement is untrue, simple as that. TYVM.

The playerbase is far too diverse to make such a statement. You wouldn't even be able to truthfully state that this game is "good" for people who like diablo.

If you want to be snarky you might say it's good for "people who play it and enjoy it" - but such a statement is pointless as this is true for every game and your "definition" of a good game would be meaningless.

In the end, what you consider to be a good game is meaningless as well and just as much as people saying it's a bad game... and saying it's "objectively" a good game is just hypocritical and the actual problem.
No such thing as an "objectively good" game exists.

Just because the game is "F2P" doesn't make it good for the consumer for example, if that's what you were perhaps getting at. That whole discussion is meaningless... at least trying to defend the point of it being the "truth" or it being a "fact" is....

[Elim Garak]

Because otherwise your statement is untrue, simple as that. TYVM.

The playerbase is far too diverse to make such a statement. .

My statement is objectively and factually true.

1. The playerbase that keeps playing the game - likes it.
2. Blizzard gets profits

Therefore: the game is objectively good.

NOT THE BEST!
Just good. As in not bad.

You are just confusing your personal opinion with reality. Quit it.

[talmir]

Guys! You are spilling your cheeto's!

[KrayZ33]

My statement is objectively and factually true.

1. The playerbase that keeps playing the game - likes it.
2. Blizzard gets profits

Therefore: the game is objectively good.

NOT THE BEST!
Just good. As in not bad.

You are just confusing your personal opinion with reality. Quit it.

To put it into your words "Wrong".

You just made subjective choice about "what a good game is" and since it falls into your decision and personal opinion about what makes a game good it's onjectively good?
How about another pov.

The game is "objectively" bad because lots of players left the game and are not playing anymore?
What if half the playerbase stops playing it in 5 months, will it be "bad" all of a sudden?

The irony of you not realizing that you are just using your personal opinion as well, about what defines "good games"

Having a product and consumers for that products means jack.
It's really pointless to even try to name something as objectively good, just stop it. Something being good or bad is entirely based upon individual perception, so it can't be anything BUT subjective.

So yes, it's good for players who play the game and good for Blizzard. Because that's what they decided it to be.
(again, what's the point of saying that?)

Its not "objectively good" for players (in general) or anyone else for that matter, even if they (the players) think or believe otherwise.
I don't know how to make it any more obvious to you but to point out that by saying "something something is a good game" you are already using your personal opinion about what makes a game good and there is literally 0 objectivity about it.

[Elim Garak]

How about another pov.

The game is "objectively" bad because lots of players left the game and are not playing anymore?
What if half the playerbase stops playing it in 5 months, will it be "bad" all of a sudden?.

No, lol.

Does the game become bad after you finish it? No! But you are not playing it anymore. So if you are done with a good game - you are done with a good game. It doesn't turn bad.

If you intent on insisting with arguing against objectivity - don't bother - I won't.
This is very trivial stuff, so if you don't see it now - you won't ever.

[KrayZ33]

No, lol.

Does the game become bad after you finish it? No! But you are not playing it anymore. So if you are done with a good game - you are done with a good game. It doesn't turn bad.

If you intent on insisting with arguing against objectivity - don't bother - I won't.
This is very trivial stuff, so if you don't see it now - you won't ever.

What makes a game good again?
Hilariously stupid. You kept arguing about it and brouguht it up again and again now you say you won't.
A troll through and through...

Whatever you think is objectively good, isn't - and that is "factually and objectively true".
You are just

Wrong

.

[Nymrohd]

So apparently some D3 modders have managed to crack several Battle.net games. I really wonder if DI will ever get an unofficial (and I guess illegal) offline mode.

[Popastique]

https://sensortower.com/blog/diablo-...illion-revenue

[MoanaLisa]

My statement is objectively and factually true.

1. The playerbase that keeps playing the game - likes it.
2. Blizzard gets profits

Therefore: the game is objectively good.

NOT THE BEST!
Just good. As in not bad.

You are just confusing your personal opinion with reality. Quit it.

I don't believe there is any special definition of good that isn't both situational to point-of-view and subjective (personal). For that matter, the game is not a scam either as much as people would like to call it such.

https://sensortower.com/blog/diablo-...illion-revenue

This is a decent example of situational and subjective. We have no idea what Blizzard's revenue and user targets for the game were. If the response has exceeded those targets—which it certainly appears to have done—then Blizzard is correct to believe that they read the market correctly and the game is fine, "good" if you will. If, however they had expectations that were higher than the results then one could make a case for some other description. The amount of time the game can meet or exceed expectations will have an effect on that as well. What is known as a 'long tail', it's persistence and health, matters but won't be known for some time.

But let's face it: $100,000,000 in less than two months is a win for Blizzard and the many doubters here were unsurprisingly wrong. One last thing: the game is now out in China (as of July 25th), doing very well, so everyone that assumed it would be banned there forever was wrong too.

This is not to say that anyone must like the game. Personally I'm ambivalent about it and haven't spent a dime on it. I log on twice a week or so, kill some demons and log off. I still much prefer D3 on PC. But denying D:I's success at this point is denying reality and fighting about it is both pointless and stupid. If this is "fallen", we should all be so lucky.

[RobertoCarlos]

I don't believe there is any special definition of good that isn't both situational to point-of-view and subjective (personal). For that matter, the game is not a scam either as much as people would like to call it such.



This is a decent example of situational and subjective. We have no idea what Blizzard's revenue and user targets for the game were. If the response has exceeded those targets—which it certainly appears to have done—then Blizzard is correct to believe that they read the market correctly and the game is fine, "good" if you will. If, however they had expectations that were higher than the results then one could make a case for some other description. The amount of time the game can meet or exceed expectations will have an effect on that as well. What is known as a 'long tail', it's persistence and health, matters but won't be known for some time.

But let's face it: $100,000,000 in less than two months is a win for Blizzard and the many doubters here were unsurprisingly wrong. One last thing: the game is now out in China (as of July 25th), doing very well, so everyone that assumed it would be banned there forever was wrong too.

This is not to say that anyone must like the game. Personally I'm ambivalent about it and haven't spent a dime on it. I log on twice a week or so, kill some demons and log off. I still much prefer D3 on PC. But denying D:I's success at this point is denying reality and fighting about it is both pointless and stupid. If this is "fallen", we should all be so lucky.

I never doubted it would make money. As a consumer I care about the quality of the product. I'm not a shareholder on Activision stock so if the game makes 50mill or 100mill it doesn't matter

[Bladesyphon]

This is not to say that anyone must like the game. Personally I'm ambivalent about it and haven't spent a dime on it. I log on twice a week or so, kill some demons and log off. I still much prefer D3 on PC. But denying D:I's success at this point is denying reality and fighting about it is both pointless and stupid. If this is "fallen", we should all be so lucky.

This is more or less where I am with it. I reached Hell II last night, have spent all of $5 for the battle pass gem, and...pretty much just play it a little before bed and at work during break. It's more or less replaced Record Keeper (RIP) and Brave Exvius now for me as my go to idle tablet gatcha game to play while bored. Once in awhile I'll flop down on my PC or Tablet and play it for a longer stent, but for the most part it's just a game where, like you said, I'll log in for a few minutes, murder me some Demons, then go back to whatever it was I was doing.

I feel like a lot of people getting up in arms about Immortal are those that expected this to be Diablo 3-2, and while I won't deny at all this game would have been far better if it released as such, for what it is, it's fine. And with Diablo IV next year, I really don't care all that much if I never end up reaching Hell V in Immortal. Diablo IV is going to be my real fix for some new Diablo goodness, but until then, Immortal is the perfect stop gap.

[Elim Garak]

I don't believe there is any special definition of good that isn't both situational to point-of-view and subjective (personal).

Of generic "good" there is not. Of good product - there is. Quite an objective definition.
Popular within the designated market and profitable.

Good product doesn't mean everybody loves it, or even thinks that it is good. Since the definition is objective - opinions are irrelevant.

Good product doesn't mean - good quality. A poor quality product can be a good product if it's effective and cheap enough to offset the poor quality.

A good game as a product is: played by the majority of its intended audience and profitable.

A good game as a game doesn't even need profits, just being popular. The problem is of course - marketing is required, and it's costly.

If you look at DI sans monetization - it's a good game. Objectively.

Since it's f2p it has monetization - and we know it's profitable. There's zero doubt about that. So it's also good monetization for Blizzard. Good game plus good monetization doesn't a scam make.

NB: Cyberpunk 2007 is a good game of poor quality that made profit.

[RobertoCarlos]

Of generic "good" there is not. Of good product - there is. Quite an objective definition.
Popular within the designated market and profitable.

Good product doesn't mean everybody loves it, or even thinks that it is good. Since the definition is objective - opinions are irrelevant.

Good product doesn't mean - good quality. A poor quality product can be a good product if it's effective and cheap enough to offset the poor quality.

A good game as a product is: played by the majority of its intended audience and profitable.

A good game as a game doesn't even need profits, just being popular. The problem is of course - marketing is required, and it's costly.

If you look at DI sans monetization - it's a good game. Objectively.

Since it's f2p it has monetization - and we know it's profitable. There's zero doubt about that. So it's also good monetization for Blizzard. Good game plus good monetization doesn't a scam make.

NB: Cyberpunk 2007 is a good game of poor quality that made profit.

When people take the Amber Heard train of argument. "Words have different meaning for me"

[Itisamuh]

If you intent on insisting with arguing against objectivity - don't bother - I won't.
This is very trivial stuff, so if you don't see it now - you won't ever.

Your criteria for the definition of objectivity is in fact subjective to your opinion, therefore it is not objectively true.

[Ghost of Cow]

If this is "fallen", we should all be so lucky.

It's D3 all over again. Remember how that was declared such a "failure" on this forum?

[Elim Garak]

Your criteria for the definition of objectivity is in fact subjective to your opinion, therefore it is not objectively true.

That's just a baseless claim. You have to point the part that is not objective, with an explanation that is not subjective. So avoid any versions of "I like" and explain how a product being enjoyed by its intended consumers - is not an objective qualifier for it being good, considering that it is its entire purpose of existence.