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

[Verdugo]

People still argue with Elim Garak? Remember, this guy was shilling hard for Stadia, calling it the future of gaming. He is nothing more than a contrarian bad faith actor that mods are too blind to notice.

[Delekii]

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.

You have the discussion reversed. You are the one claiming it is objectively true, despite it being very clearly subjective, as well as nonsensical. The onus is on you, not on people calling you out. In this particular quote, ignoring every other post preceeding, your subjective (or, as usual, nonsensical claims) are that its entire purpose of existence is to be "enjoyed" by its consumers (overtly untrue, given at least part of its pupose is to make money), and that it actually IS being enjoyed by its intended customers. Both of these things require, at a minimum, a leap of logic on your behalf, requiring subjective bias.

People still argue with Elim Garak? Remember, this guy was shilling hard for Stadia, calling it the future of gaming. He is nothing more than a contrarian bad faith actor that mods are too blind to notice.

It's kinda fun though; he says such stupid things that it's like a free win each time.

[Elim Garak]

People still argue with Elim Garak? Remember, this guy was shilling hard for Stadia, calling it the future of gaming. He is nothing more than a contrarian bad faith actor that mods are too blind to notice.

I play my PS5 games on PC using remote play (same tech as stadia, Sony actually bought OnLive years back, the first "stadia" tech), what's up with your cloud gaming?

[MoanaLisa]

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

It's a personal preference but I prefer "successful" when talking about market judgements. It seems more precise than "good." That's just me though. It's useful sometimes to mentally insert a "for me" into a review to clarify what might be personal and what isn't.

D:I is objectively a success. Subjectively (for me) it's nice enough but I'm pretty ambivalent about it. It's fun (for me) in short bursts but I could never see myself playing it for hours at a time (or even a single hour at this point).

Minor disagreements about nomenclature is all it adds up to in my view.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Yeah. People were still angrily calling it a failure and disaster as it passed 30,000,000 units in sales.

[Elim Garak]

It's a personal preference but I prefer "successful" when talking about market judgements

If we were talking about finance only.
But a game cannot be successful without being good for the people who play and pay.
It doesn't matter that people who don't play - don't like it.

The problem with people though - they seem to be incapable of separating their subjective opinions from objective reality. Which is normal, it's human condition, and it's hard to overcome.

DI is objectively GOOD game. It is both financially successful and fun to play. There is not other definition for a good game, objective that is. All that's left is subjective opinions of particular people - and no one should care about that, besides them.

"Liking or not liking" is irrelevant for objective definitions.

The game can be objectively good - but not your cup of tea.

I don't play football managers - but they are definitely good games.

[Delekii]

If we were talking about finance only.
But a game cannot be successful without being good for the people who play and pay.
It doesn't matter that people who don't play - don't like it.

The problem with people though - they seem to be incapable of separating their subjective opinions from objective reality. Which is normal, it's human condition, and it's hard to overcome.

DI is objectively GOOD game. It is both financially successful and fun to play. There is not other definition for a good game, objective that is. All that's left is subjective opinions of particular people - and no one should care about that, besides them.

"Liking or not liking" is irrelevant for objective definitions.

The game can be objectively good - but not your cup of tea.

I don't play football managers - but they are definitely good games.

There is no objective definition of a good game; that is the entire point. There is no objective reason that popularity or financial success are measures of a what makes a game good. Any claim as such is a subjective one, by you. Good is a word that has no objective meaning in any application. It is, definitionally, a word describing the position of a given object on a subjectively valued scale. In every case where something is described as "good", a person has subjectively ascribed a value to that object's position on a scale.

[Aucald]

This thread isn't about how subjectivity and objectivity work as concepts, so let's drop the derailing tangent argument and return to the topic at hand concerning Diablo: Immortal.

[Jtbrig7390]

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

By ur logic war is good because it makes profits.

Something making profit doesn't make it good, it just means enough people spent enough money on it. cigarette's makes profits and they are not good.

[Elim Garak]

It's amazing how people are literally blind to the actual game of DI and only see profits.

Diablo Immortal is a good game regardless of the profits. it would've been a good game even if it was completely free with no monetization.
Profits only prove that it's a good game because a bad game can only be profitable if it's a scam which DI is not.

[Delekii]

This thread isn't about how subjectivity and objectivity work as concepts, so let's drop the derailing tangent argument and return to the topic at hand concerning Diablo: Immortal.

I'm not sure which thread you're talking about, because this thread is like.. 90% Elik Garam making semantic arguments and other people correcting him.

We went through the Ethics saga of the 30s, the Loot Box fiasco of the 50s, "I can't believe it's not pay-2-win!" in the 70s, a return to Loot Box denialism in the 80s... that evolved into the "is it really gambling if it's only selling the OPPORTUNITY to gamble" in the 110s. There was that whole Battlebeard saga that lasted like 30 pages from the 120s. Now we're back to Elik Garam semantic creationism in the 160s. I'm not sure this thread has been more than tangentially related to D:I for more than 10% of the time.

[KainneAbsolute]

The game is broken in pvp. Not only because of the whales.

I played this week because a friend told me that having low combat rating for being free 2 play allows you to win pvp points even if you lose the match. So I tested it, and it was true. I reached Legend in my server by winning points even if l lose because people spent so much money that I am too far away from them.

Still, I tried to play my best with a complete cc build and tried to minimize my deaths. In some matches, I died 9 times, and I still won pvp points.

[Nymrohd]

The game is broken in pvp. Not only because of the whales.

I played this week because a friend told me that having low combat rating for being free 2 play allows you to win pvp points even if you lose the match. So I tested it, and it was true. I reached Legend in my server by winning points even if l lose because people spent so much money that I am too far away from them.

Still, I tried to play my best with a complete cc build and tried to minimize my deaths. In some matches, I died 9 times, and I still won pvp points.

Deaths when attacking bring a significant penalty to your score. If you are in a very uneven fight as an attacker, you are probably better off not rezzing.

[ImpalerEU]

By ur logic war is good because it makes profits.

Something making profit doesn't make it good, it just means enough people spent enough money on it. cigarette's makes profits and they are not good.

Moral words, superman. But reality is, if you made even 0.01% of those "terrible immoral profits" you won't be making these comical comments.

- - - Updated - - -

It's amazing how people are literally blind to the actual game of DI and only see profits.

Diablo Immortal is a good game regardless of the profits. it would've been a good game even if it was completely free with no monetization.
Profits only prove that it's a good game because a bad game can only be profitable if it's a scam which DI is not.

Since when was profit a terrible thing? Businesses grow and provide more using profits.
Are people here so uneducated that they need someone to tell them that?

Then again, what would I expect from a community that takes life advice from people like Asmongold.

[Blackcoffin]

Moral words, superman. But reality is, if you made even 0.01% of those "terrible immoral profits" you won't be making these comical comments.

- - - Updated - - -



Since when was profit a terrible thing? Businesses grow and provide more using profits.
Are people here so uneducated that they need someone to tell them that?

Then again, what would I expect from a community that takes life advice from people like Asmongold.

When you're operating on an abstraction level at this altitude bordering the cosmic horizon, it is easy to not understand the complexities of why a monetization design might dissuade a player to leave a bad review of a game. Good on Blizzard making a profit, but pissing your pants to stay warm, will only last for so long.

[Battlebeard]

I'm not sure which thread you're talking about, because this thread is like.. 90% Elik Garam making semantic arguments and other people correcting him.

We went through the Ethics saga of the 30s, the Loot Box fiasco of the 50s, "I can't believe it's not pay-2-win!" in the 70s, a return to Loot Box denialism in the 80s... that evolved into the "is it really gambling if it's only selling the OPPORTUNITY to gamble" in the 110s. There was that whole Battlebeard saga that lasted like 30 pages from the 120s. Now we're back to Elik Garam semantic creationism in the 160s. I'm not sure this thread has been more than tangentially related to D:I for more than 10% of the time.

lol, the "Battlebeard saga". The reason this thread is a mess is because it's too much emotion involved. People who hate this game really HATE it and don't even want to discuss properly. It's a back-patting party, and anyone who say something positive is flamed or called stupid.

It's nearly impossible to discuss this game, cause we who like it are never taken serious.

[kranur]

lol, the "Battlebeard saga". The reason this thread is a mess is because it's too much emotion involved. People who hate this game really HATE it and don't even want to discuss properly. It's a back-patting party, and anyone who say something positive is flamed or called stupid.

It's nearly impossible to discuss this game, cause we who like it are never taken serious.

Except you're doing the exact same thing just from the opposite side. "Diablo Immortal the best, you are just haters nyah nyah nyah"

[Delekii]

lol, the "Battlebeard saga". The reason this thread is a mess is because it's too much emotion involved. People who hate this game really HATE it and don't even want to discuss properly. It's a back-patting party, and anyone who say something positive is flamed or called stupid.

It's nearly impossible to discuss this game, cause we who like it are never taken serious.

Well, you're right there. It's very difficult to take someone who likes Immortal seriously.

[Battlebeard]

Well, you're right there. It's very difficult to take someone who likes Immortal seriously.

Don't you see a problem with your statement? You have to take everyone serious, whether it's irl like politics or w/e, or game discussions, or you get nowhere. If you want to prove you are right, you gotta treat your adversary with some respect. Whoever gets personal or silly always lose the debate, instantly.

[Delekii]

Don't you see a problem with your statement? You have to take everyone serious, whether it's irl like politics or w/e, or game discussions, or you get nowhere. If you want to prove you are right, you gotta treat your adversary with some respect. Whoever gets personal or silly always lose the debate, instantly.

Yeah.. no. This isn't a debate and you're not an adversary. It's beneficial to have the thread consistently bumped to have the point reiterated, that's it.

[Nymrohd]

Yeah.. no. This isn't a debate and you're not an adversary. It's beneficial to have the thread consistently bumped to have the point reiterated, that's it.

Whatever. The game is successful and millions of people play it. More people are likely to play DI than will ever play D4. Have fun being bitter.