Lost Odyssey was a good game.

Baldurs Gate 2 looked great for its time (it was a significant graphical upgrade over v1), as did the 1st one. Short of being 3d, they were hailed as the first significant departure from gold box games. Both games also had a high degree of polish in the artwork and interface, for their times.

Your standards are too low. Gaming is a billion dollar business. Games with huge budgets like D3 should come with higher expectations.

My only expectation out of a game is enjoyment. I get enjoyment out of a combination of good gameplay, well thought out plots, and interesting mechanics. Graphics are FAR down the list of what I look for in a good game.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Yeah Final Fantasy 13 was probably the most beautiful game I'd ever seen. Too bad it wasn't a game.

_________________

Demon Souls

Yea Demon's Souls was a good example of a game with great graphics and good gameplay.

I'm going to agree with Joxur though, Lost Odyssey was a good game. It was the spiritual successor to the Final Fantasy series; Unfortunately it didn't do well because some people are stuck on the idea now that real-time combat is the only thing that makes playing RPGs worthwhile. It had a pretty good storyline, the soundtrack was awesome, the graphics were awesome, and the gameplay was reminiscient of some of the great old school RPGs with an interesting twist(immortal/mortal system). I'll admit adding a few new battle mechanics, especially towards the end, would've helped it.

Lost Odyssey's storyline (at least on the first disc) was disjointed and made no sense to me.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Keep in mind now Blizzard is implenting Item Selling for real cash in Diablo III from what ive read.

The Game play looks great even if it has a "dated" feel, I rather have really cool game play then super duper graphics!

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

To be fair, Final Fantasy Tactics had a pretty obscure/disjointed storyline for the first few hours before it really started to make sense. It was an excellent storyline, however, and the mystery element(and realizations) added to its enjoyment. I'm not going to say LO is on the same level, but it makes more sense later on and is enjoyable to partake in.

I read somewhere that in DIII they are cutting down the personalization of the build tree.

As in points apply themselves on skills? That doesn't make any sense.

I remember now, there was an announcement that said the skill trees are gone and didn't really say what the replacement was. There was a hint at you level you get new skills/spells no setting of stat or skill points.

Also there is no "off-line" solo play. Everything is online

Ya. Things we know for certain already:

- You will have to be continuously connected to the Internet to play Diablo III, even in single-player. This is a dependency created by Blizzard's anti-cheating measures, which they've decided to extend into the single-player experience. They haven't gone on to say it's also an anti-piracy measure, but it totally is.

- There will be a cash auction house. Sellers will be anonymous. This means Blizzard could inject items into the world for extra cash through the Auction House, and you'd never catch them at it -- but they pinky-swear not to do that, so it's cool.

- The core engine has been done for so long that it'll look more like Diablo II than anything currently out, but mechanics will be much more creative. Basically, it'll look like Rift.

People can't be surprised by the online only play experience given the route SC2 took.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

I'll admit Rift's class system interested me, even if the game itself didn't.

I don't see any dealbreakers here, though. I'm annoyed by the lack of being able to play without an internet connection, but it's not a huge deal. No doubt there won't be any LAN play either, which again is stupid but not a dealbreaker. The question remains how the game will play, not these little nuances.

I play SC2 offline, and even cheat when I'm so inclined to do so. I expect the same capability from Diablo 3.

Not being able to cheat on single player games sucks cause we wont be able to try out builds but it's not a deal breaker. If the internet goes down then I'll be bored but won't be able to play D3. That's a deal breaker...

Plus the bullshit of anonymous cash auction house. What's stopping Blizzard from sneaking item there and while we are at it better items than what drop in game to keep their value high.

I was all for the cash auction house making it easy to make money if you find a good item you don't need. But anonymous auction house... Blizzard could have been more obvious and just said: We will sell items for real money.

I will probably end up buying it anyway, but it will not be a day 1 purchase and i'll try to wait the longest time possible.

Hopefully by the time it get's out I will have lost interest and just have fun with The old republic / Deus EX and Skyrim

Really now? lol How many times does your internet go down, and for how long too? It's a VERY rare event where I live, but it must be different in your area I see. That, or it's time for a new ISP

I won't be able to load up my laptop on a flight and play a rousing game of single player.

Not without forking over $15 for in flight internet at least.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

just be glad there's no monthly sub...

Yet.
The monthly battle.net "fee" if you don't have an active WoW sub idea still isn't off the table.

Depending on the time of year sometimes its stable sometime its going down all time time past 11pm. It's the only broadband ISP in the area.

1. Not everyone lives in the US. Yes, there's worse than our stone age broadband in the world

2. Flights, Hotels (not many, but some, especially overseas), etc. This sucks balls, as I travel quite a bit and Diablo has been a favorite since it's load and go without the story nonsense.

Surely you can find something else to do in the event that your internet goes down. Some of you guys act like you must play the game 24/7, forever and ever, amen.

No, I just want to be able to play the game whenever I want, whether I have internet or not.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Well, you can't. Just like I can't play my Xbox games when I am at a Texans game. Life will go on.

One of the biggest issues in D2 was hacked items, and if by forcing people to have server based saved files to help reduce fake/hacked items...I'm all for it. I played online with my friends 99% of the time back in the day. So, I really care less about an offline mode myself.

Diablo series has always been better multiplayer anyway. And if it bugs you that much, Vanamar...don't buy the game

The easiest thing to do would have been to keep single player characters exactly that, and make online characters online only.

They're using the "anti cheating" stance as a masquerade for invasive and/or inconvenient DRM.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

That's not going to work either for players. It takes time to level up and build your chars. Doing twice the work is not something I'm interested in, and I'm sure a lot of other people will feel the same way too.

What? Why would it be twice the work? You're given the OPTION of playing either offline or multiplayer characters. IIRC this is how Diablo 1(maybe 2 as well, can't remember) worked. If someone wants to play single player but retain the chance to play multiplayer at some point, they could easily make locked out multiplayer games and solo. Why would they ever need to do "twice the work"?

Sure, you could say "well, if I'm not able to get online then I'd have to make a new character from scratch and play it separately", but then we're back at our current predictament - the difference is, players would have a choice in the matter. Choice is always better for the customer.

I guess they never played Diablo 2 and decided on open or closed Bnet characters...

Vanamar stated keeping two sets of chars (to combat fake/hacked items...a huge problem in D2). One offline, and one online...you would not be able to use an offline char online etc.

That means twice the work to me, Venen.

That's not how it worked.
You could play online with an open bnet character.
You could play online with an closed bnet character.

What an open bnet character you ran the risk of coming across hacked items.

You could play single player / offline with an open bnet character.
I didn't play with anyone but my friends so I didn't care either way our games were private.


Now they removed the option to do that. There is only Closed character.
There is one and only one reason they chose to do that... DRM. If you cant create and load a character/game offline that means until server emulators catch up even if you copy the game you won't be able to play.

If you think for a second it's for your benefit, to "protect" you from hacked items you are a moron.

How is it twice the work unless you actually choose to have both? It's your decision, otherwise it ends up how it would be under their proposed system. In the current case, we have zero options.

The worst case scenario is that it ends up like it would be now where you would have a multiplayer character that you couldn't play online. Where's twice the work if it's exactly the same when you simply have a multiplayer character? Again, the only difference is that you'd still have the option to play a purely single-player game. Options are good.

Blame China. Fuck China.

China = exploitable revenue stream yay!

We probably won't. That said, if we don't vocalize WHY we're not buying the game, they'll blame piracy, which only reinforces the position on DRM. I want them to know the lost sales are as a result of the DRM, rather than not wanting to pay for it.

It's the same reason I gripe about Netflix and the new pricing schemes. This is how the market changes.

You won't be buying it. Uh huh.

Beyond the concept that there are still areas without decent internet connections readily available(even in the US, believe it or not)... I enjoy going on hiking/camping trips that go pretty deep into the middle of nowhere, and sometimes I bring my laptop with me to either get some work done or the occasional brief gaming fix. Having been on plenty of road trips as well, I can say that my laptop has served me well and I'm glad most of the older games didn't require this kind of bullshit.

That and.. well, it's also just nice to know that you can load something up on any computer without having to think about connecting it or doing any update nonsense. 99.9 percent of the time, companies will take a mile for every inch - If you're connecting, we might as well install 50 patches before you can actually play and then feed you gobs of advertisements about our latest products, then re-direct you to our main website. There have been a few games of the past that required internet connections to function - and while they are few and far between, those that did where the companies don't exist anymore are gone for good unless you crack/hack the game. While it's unlikely that Blizzard will fall under anytime soon, it's about that standalone confidence that the DVD you hold in your hand is the only thing separating you from gaming goodness. I don't like the ultimate access to my entry for a single player experience being beholden to a server farm a few hundred miles away, sorry.

So find another game to play when you go "camping" or "hiking". You guys are retarded and borderline pathetic (some are not even borderline). This game is going to come out in 2012. In the year 2012, it is not that shocking that playing a video game will require an internet connection. Nobody is forcing you to buy the game. Quit bitching like little kids about this. We all know you'll be buying it, playing it, and loving it because that is what you guys do. All day. Every day.

Does it suck that you'll be required to have an internet connection to play it? Sure, if you say so. Does it suck that there's going to be a real-money Auction House? Sure, if you say so. As I said before, you all act like this is the only game that will be available at the time. Just play Skyrim.

"But I want to play it when I want to play it..... waaaaaaaaaa!"

Grow up.

Why would people be expected to like a feature that has *no* benefit to the consumer whatsoever, and only limits them?

Why do you like it?

I don't "like it" but I accept it. We aren't in 1994 anymore, Toto.

I'm ok with with them building features into their game which prevent piracy.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

Hot damn, this thread could not be more classic fanboyism.

It's like someone shit in your cereal.

In theory, the direct benefit to the consumer is less cheating... if you consider that a benefit. Indirectly, sure, there's the piracy argument, but that's bull.

If the fanboyism comment was directed towards me, that couldn't be further from the truth. One just has to read the old Starcraft 2 thread to know that.

I view the addition of an anonymous cash auction house as dramatically increasing both the desire to and likelihood of encountering cheating/fraud.

Oh man, look at what a hardass Neesha is. Woooooooahhhhh.

I just don't understand the logic behind "Well, it's 2011, therefore every game MUST have an internet connection and you should just expect it!". Sure, this day and age and all that. I could get a solar-powered nose hair trimmer, but what's the point? Just to prove that it's 2011?

New doesn't = better, especially with implementation that ignores a wider breadth of user options.

I don't have Internet. Why? My situation:

I work 12 hour days, usually 6 days a week. Because of my HUGE salary (sarcasm!) due to my omg horrible teacher's union just insisting I make enough money to barely make my monthly payments on my college loans, (Yes I know, we teachers are bleeding the educational system dry! We are so horrible!) I have to make choices about what entertainment options I pay for at home. Because I am rarely home, I have chosen not to pay for an internet connection.

Sorry, guess that was a off-topic rant. Krby said something about abolishing evil teacher unions in another thread and it spilled out here :p. Mah bad! Anyway, I have been frustrated that I can no longer buy games at the store because almost all of them require an internet connection to activate them. This is frustrating, and it seems unnecessary.

Nobody made that logic. I said it is not that shocking, which is quite a bit different than saying every game MUST have an internet connection. It's one game with a HISTORY of cheating. Blizzard is doing something to combat the cheating. All of you have internet. If you don't have internet, it is simply because you choose not to spend less than a dollar a day to have it.

So what if MAYBE you won't be able to play the game one hour out of the month when your internet actually goes down? I couldn't play WoW when my internet was down either, and I paid a monthly fee for that game. It's time some of you put on your big boy underwear. You will be ok if you cannot play Diablo 3 every day, all day. I promise.

Maybe because that's not quite the same type of game as Diablo? Maybe.



Yeah, you guys. Because having reasonable expectations of a product that you pay for is childish. Stop that, it's time to grow up.

Don't give me that shit. It is the same type of game. I am probably the only one in this thread outside of Fribur who would get Diablo 3 and never play the online portion. Bov, are you going to sit here and say you wouldn't play online? Venen? Jox? I call bullshit. While you may not play online all the time, I'd bet pretty much everything I had that your primary reason for getting the game wouldn't be for an engrossing story, or a thrilling single-player experience. You'd get the game to play online.

How is that different that WoW? I can solo in WoW 100% of the time. They are the same "type" of game, in that the primary motive behind playing for most of the population is to experience the online content.

Neesha,

I didn't play Diablo 2 online for *years* after it was released. I played obsessively to beat the single player game because I thought the story was interesting. It was only after I started at a new job and found out that my coworkers played online did I start playing with them.

I would happily play just single player Diablo 3, because I trust Blizzard to create a storyline at least as engaging as Diablo 2. I'm just annoyed at the fact that I can't just boot up my laptop when I'm out of town to play it without searching for a source of internet access (not all hotels provide free internet!)

If they were actually honest and said "this is to prevent piracy" instead of "this is to prevent cheating", I might not have as big of an issue, since they've *proven in the past* they can handle that sort of thing without requiring an always on connection.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Do not get me wrong. I understand the point about wanting to be able to play without having an online connection. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. Let me ask this, and please be honest.

How often do you go out of town and boot up your laptop to play video games (or in Venen's case, how often do you "go camping" and want to play video games while you are out in the wilderness)?
Which games are you booting up to play (are they always the newest game you purchased, or do you catch yourself playing some older stuff at times)?
How long do you expect to play Diablo 3 when it is released (are you thinking this is something you'll be playing for a few years or a few months)?
How rare is it REALLY that you don't have an internet connection, or the ability to GET an internet connection if you absolutely need one?

1) once a month, at least. I travel a decent bit for business, and I'd like to be able to relax in the hotel room. When the wife and I go to family events on weekends, it's not that big of a deal since wifi is usually an option.

2) If I have internet, I'll play something online. Wow, Eve, TF2, whatever. If I don't have internet available either free or for a reasonable price, then I'll futz around with single player games like bioshock 2, D2, mass effect 2.

3) If the storyline's remotely engaging, I'll play through it at least once per class.

4) When traveling, it's about 50/50 availability of free/cheap internet, or internet that's really not worth it (anything more than $10/day is exorbitant and not worth paying for) -- I could more easily expense a MiFi from verizon or sprint, but with data caps that's really not going to work.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Can you kind of see my point about people blowing this out of proportion?

1) If you go out of town once a month, I'll assume it's 5 days. Let's say every other month you go somewhere that doesn't have wifi. That would mean that 2.5 days a month you would not be able to play Diablo 3.

2) If you have internet, the entire point is moot. If not, you've already proven you're not against playing some old stuff.

3) We'll say you'll still be playing D3 after 6 months (not that it is really relevant, I suppose).

4) I know next to nothing about tethering, or about what type of connection will be required to play D3, but isn't there a chance that you just need to be connected for the initial login, in which case your connection speed will not make a difference? So hypothetically, couldn't you tether with your cell phone just to be 'online' even though the speed will suck? Or do you think if you don't have a broadband connection, the game will lag/suck? That's an honest question; I really am wondering what the answer is.

Everybody in this thread who has stated they won't be buying the game, will in fact be buying the game. Everyone knows this already. For every one of you "speaking with your wallets", there are four that are buying the game because none of these issues "Auction House / Required Internet Connection" are serious deal breakers and the game will be awesome as fuck. Some people just need any old random podium to sperg out on.

Sorry Diablo 3 makes you angry. When you do cave in a week later, I'll probably have some shit uniques you can have that won't sell for weekend beer money and I'll speed run you to hell difficulty because we all have to play online and no sense listening to you bitch about being behind everybody else.

Givin and I agree on something. It has been a while!

I'll probably buy it a couple years after when there's a battle chest or something just like I did D1 and D2

_________________

I'm not buying it