Diablo III

[TheMightyEthan]

How is that irrelevant?

 

Personally I play CoD for singleplayer (though I don't pay anywhere close to full price for it), but I'll grant that most people buy it for the multiplayer. The difference is that the multiplayer in CoD by its very nature requires a network, so yeah if that networks down it may suck but it makes sense that you can't play. With Diablo 3, on the other hand, the network isn't required by the nature of singleplayer, it's required as a design decision by Blizzard, which makes it stupid.

[toxicitizen]

The reasoning they gave for that design decision makes sense to me. Besides, thinking of the game as a single-player title is disregarding the fact that it's obviously more geared towards online coop.

 

It's not an ideal situation but I understand why it's there and I don't mind putting up with it. And it's not like circumventing the whole thing is hard either. The game is guaranteed to get cracked sooner or later, so when it does just get a pirated copy for when you want to play offline. Problem solved.

[TheMightyEthan]

The explanation was a cop-out. Sure the game is more designed for online coop, but they don't forbid singleplayer, they just require you to be online while playing singleplayer. If they'd really felt that the game could only properly be played with other people then they wouldn't have allowed singleplayer at all (like WoW), but they didn't do that, which means they acknowledged that singleplayer is a valid method of play, they just decided to cripple it.

[toxicitizen]

Sure doesn't feel crippled to me when I'm playing it. It's not like you wouldn't be constantly connected anyway.

 

And bear in mind that my motherboard's network adapter sometimes goes into fits where it won't hold a connection for more than 5-10 mins at a time, so it's not like I'm not at risk of being prevented from playing at some point. But it still doesn't feel like that big of a deal to me.

 

I'm curious why you feel like the reasoning behind it is a cop-out, though.

[SomTervo]

I really don't understand their justification for the singleplayer portion having to be always-online.

 

As far as I'm concerned, there is no justification for it. It's just like Ubisoft's always-on DRM for Assassin's Creed etc.

 

Especially considering their pedigree of being super PC-player-base-friendly. Like Diablo II was incredible for just sharing with friends and not needing any commitments DRM wise.

 

This is all as someone who'd like to play or own the game, but really isn't that bothered. As a bystander, it still seems utterly ridiculous.

 

P.S. Is there any sort of optional offline mode? Like in Steam how you can set certain games (or however it works) to be playable offline, but you have to activate them whilst connected to t'internet. Like, if you're taking your computer somewhere without a connection, you could play it. Because that can happen, contrary to Blizzard's beliefs.

Edited May 15, 2012 by kenshi_ryden

[TheMightyEthan]

I'm curious why you feel like the reasoning behind it is a cop-out, though.

 

Their explanation is that it's a multiplayer-focused game. The fact that they allow singleplayer belies that. They said that they want you to always be connected so they can prevent modded singleplayer characters from getting online and messing with the game. That is fine, but that is only a justification for not allowing offline characters to play online, not for disallowing offline altogether.

 

Sure doesn't feel crippled to me when I'm playing it. It's not like you wouldn't be constantly connected anyway.

 

Sure it's fine when it works. But what about when the servers go down, like today? Now you can't play your game at all, even singleplayer. It's not even as if it doesn't have a singleplayer mode, it does, you're just locked out of it for no good reason.

 

And bear in mind that my motherboard's network adapter sometimes goes into fits where it won't hold a connection for more than 5-10 mins at a time, so it's not like I'm not at risk of being prevented from playing at some point. But it still doesn't feel like that big of a deal to me.

 

The fact that your network adapter sucks is not a justification for forcing outages of a singleplayer game on other people.

[Johnny]

With Assassin's Creed it's different for a few reasons, primarily: singleplayer-focused titles by a developer whose server support I don't trust in the least.

Diablo is primarily a multiplayer title anyway, like StarCraft 2, so I care very few shits about it. Even if there was a separate offline mode I would be playing the Battle.Net mode either way.

 

Especially when the game is just so goddamned fun. I've not had this much fun blowing stuff up in a game since... Well, Diablo 2. It's improved compared to the competition in every measurable way, and many less easy to measure.

 

Either way we went over this when everything was first revealed and I'm getting tired of the whole discussion. I'm fine with people not buying it over the always-online deal - my priorities are not yours and vice versa - but I'm less fine when people (in general, not accusing anyone here) are trying to convince me I should also hate the game. I'd rather just talk about the game itself. Because, really, there's a lot of cool things worth discussing.

 

I guess it's just cool to hate on Blizzard since their merger with Activision though, what with a game like Diablo being always-online gets more hate for it on forums than Assassin's Creed does.

[SomTervo]

I understand Assassin's Creed isn't a very apt comparison. But I imagine, like the previous Diablos, that the singleplayer portion of Diablo 3 is just as significant as the multiplayer portion; the multiplayer mode just giving the added benefit of having more than one person playing it. In singleplayer it must be as big and detailed as the multiplayer; just as good to get lost in and have a great time in.

 

The gameplay, world, and loot is surely also the same over both modes? I know of a few people who genuinely would only get Diablo 3 to play the singleplayer; and that's probably what I'd do if I had it, mostly, too. And if you only want to play singleplayer, there's no justification for having to be online the whole time either.

 

That's fair if this is old discussion. I haven't really paid any attention to the game until now, so I'm new to it.

 

Re: the actual game, it would be great to hear how they've made improvements over D2. Actually, I'm specifically interested in how they made the addictive point 'n' click combat translate into a 3D engine. Animations with more frames and more angles, etc. How mobile is the 3D camera, btw? Just as mobile as the D2 one, or is it more zoomable/scrollable.

[toxicitizen]

Their explanation is that it's a multiplayer-focused game. The fact that they allow singleplayer belies that. They said that they want you to always be connected so they can prevent modded singleplayer characters from getting online and messing with the game. That is fine, but that is only a justification for not allowing offline characters to play online, not for disallowing offline altogether.

 

It's mostly because of the real money auction house, actually. Diablo II is completely broken and unbalanced online because of cheating and item duping. With actual money in play, item duping would seriously fuck that up. It would seem like a no-brainer to have an option to create an entirely offline character, though. But I'm not sure if there's a shared stash that allows you to transfer items between your characters. If there is, then that's probably why it's not an option.

 

The fact that your network adapter sucks is not a justification for forcing outages of a singleplayer game on other people.

 

Yeah, that makes no fucking sense whatsoever. I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. All I was meant was that I'm not taking a "it's not a problem for me so I don't care" position. I genuinely don't feel like it's that big of a deal. Sure, if and when I'm prevented from playing because either my internet died or the servers are down, it's going to suck. But I'm not a fucking baby, I'll just go play something else in the meantime.

 

The gameplay, world, and loot is surely also the same over both modes?

 

I could be wrong here, but I think you get better loot drops when playing coop.

 

Re: the actual game, it would be great to hear how they've made improvements over D2. Actually, I'm specifically interested in how they made the addictive point 'n' click combat translate into a 3D engine. Animations with more frames and more angles, etc. How mobile is the 3D camera, btw? Just as mobile as the D2 one, or is it more zoomable/scrollable.

Camera is fixed, you can't zoom in or rotate it. That kinda sucks but the game looks amazing otherwise.

Edited May 16, 2012 by FLD

[Johnny]

Well, apart from the obvious difference that co-op is more fun than going at it solo, the endgame of Diablo games is mostly about hunting and trading items. It's about the online economy which that doesn't exist at all in singleplayer and the game then just sort of dies once you've unlocked most of your abilities. Other than that, yes, it is basically the same.

 

Re: The camera, it is not controllable by the player, though certain scenes shifts the camera around. Specifically I remember a staircase leading down to the final boss of Act 1 shifting the camera to have me looking down at the arena I would later fight the boss in. You can also set it to zoom in on your character whenever you open the inventory. You know, in case you feel like getting murdered every time you check if that axe you picked up is any better than the one you have equipped.

 

EDIT

 

I'm seeing some people say that some Koreans beat the game in 7 hours. That's simplifying it by a lot.

Some Koreans beat Normal mode in seven hours. Normal is the "learn the ropes" part of the game and only gets you to around level 30. If it follows the same pattern as Diablo 2, the real challenge/fun/frustration starts in Nightmare. It won't count as beaten until you've defeated Inferno difficulty.

Don't take that to say that Normal mode is fast either. These guys were serious Diablo veterans and for most people it's gonna take considerably longer. I have logged almost 10 hours into it and I've just beaten Act 2, Normal on my Wizard.

[TheMightyEthan]

I guess it's just cool to hate on Blizzard since their merger with Activision though, what with a game like Diablo being always-online gets more hate for it on forums than Assassin's Creed does.

 

Just for the record (and I know you probably weren't directing that at me) I hated it when Ubi did it too, and refused to buy the games until they patched it out. Connect-at-launch is still stupid, but I can deal with it. Also I have nothing against Blizzard, in fact I'm generally very pro-Blizzard. I fucking love Starcraft 2 and quite enjoyed WoW back when I used to play it.

 

Their explanation is that it's a multiplayer-focused game. The fact that they allow singleplayer belies that. They said that they want you to always be connected so they can prevent modded singleplayer characters from getting online and messing with the game. That is fine, but that is only a justification for not allowing offline characters to play online, not for disallowing offline altogether.

 

It's mostly because of the real money auction house, actually. Diablo II is completely broken and unbalanced online because of cheating and item duping. With actual money in play, item duping would seriously fuck that up. It would seem like a no-brainer to have an option to create an entirely offline character, though. But I'm not sure if there's a shared stash that allows you to transfer items between your characters. If there is, then that's probably why it's not an option.

 

If that's the case re: item tranferring just lock offline characters out of item transferring too. And RMAH is what I was getting at with the modding: you could cheat/mod/glitch weapons/items/etc and fuck up the economy.

 

The fact that your network adapter sucks is not a justification for forcing outages of a singleplayer game on other people.

 

Yeah, that makes no fucking sense whatsoever. I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. All I was meant was that I'm not taking a "it's not a problem for me so I don't care" position. I genuinely don't feel like it's that big of a deal. Sure, if and when I'm prevented from playing because either my internet died or the servers are down, it's going to suck. But I'm not a fucking baby, I'll just go play something else in the meantime.

 

Ah, I see now. I took it to mean "I have to deal with this anyway so you shouldn't care." Sorry.

[Johnny]

I guess it's just cool to hate on Blizzard since their merger with Activision though, what with a game like Diablo being always-online gets more hate for it on forums than Assassin's Creed does.

 

Just for the record (and I know you probably weren't directing that at me) I hated it when Ubi did it too, and refused to buy the games until they patched it out. Connect-at-launch is still stupid, but I can deal with it. Also I have nothing against Blizzard, in fact I'm generally very pro-Blizzard. I fucking love Starcraft 2 and quite enjoyed WoW back when I used to play it.

 

Yeah, not directed at you, more at the general attitude towards Blizzard and Blizzard fans the last few years.

 

 

If that's the case re: item tranferring just lock offline characters out of item transferring too. And RMAH is what I was getting at with the modding: you could cheat/mod/glitch weapons/items/etc and fuck up the economy.

 

 

I'd agree with this, except I do know that some people managed to hack items onto the closed battle.net system in Diablo II despite that not letting you transfer characters back and forth (which Open Battle.Net did let you). I'd rather there was a way to play it offline, but I can also see why they'd want to take extra precautions with letting people have local access to as little of the code as possible. Not that I buy that this is their entire and only reason for it, mind.

[toxicitizen]

If that's the case re: item tranferring just lock offline characters out of item transferring too. And RMAH is what I was getting at with the modding: you could cheat/mod/glitch weapons/items/etc and fuck up the economy.

I'd agree with this, except I do know that some people managed to hack items onto the closed battle.net system in Diablo II despite that not letting you transfer characters back and forth (which Open Battle.Net did let you). I'd rather there was a way to play it offline, but I can also see why they'd want to take extra precautions with letting people have local access to as little of the code as possible. Not that I buy that this is their entire and only reason for it, mind.

 

Pretty much this. I mean, it's not like I don't get where you're coming from, Ethan. I just don't believe for one second that it's as simple as them just not wanting to allow it.

[TheMightyEthan]

And conversely, despite what they say I don't believe for one second that piracy was not a significant factor in this decision.

[toxicitizen]

And conversely, despite what they say I don't believe for one second that piracy was not a significant factor in this decision.

 

Honestly, I'd like to believe that Blizzard aren't that stupid. I mean, by now Ubisoft have pretty much proven that always online does literally nothing to combat piracy. If anything, it loses them sales while actively encouraging people to pirate by pissing them off.

 

That being said, I wouldn't exactly be shocked if we learned that it was pushed on them from the Activision side. I would expect them to be that stupid. But I think Blizzard operates independently, though.

Edited May 16, 2012 by FLD

[Johnny]

As far as is known to the public, Blizzard retains the same level of autonomy they had before the merger in regards to creating their games.

I don't think it's impossible that it's how it is to some degree to combat piracy, but I doubt it's the main or only reason. Blizzard aren't known for being pants on head retarded, and is still one of the few companies I've not seen blame lacking sales on piracy.

 

Not that they have any lacking sales to blame on anything, but yeah.

 

---

 

Regarding in-game stuff: I've just taken a break at the Act 3 outpost. Holy shit that Act 2 final boss boss got hard for me. My character is such a glass cannon I kept getting killed in 1-2 hits. Had to swap out my skill build and a large portion of my items for things with +vitality.

[toxicitizen]

Act 3? Man, how is everyone getting so far so quickly? I've seen people talking about being on Act 3 like 7-8 hours in.

 

When I stopped playing earlier I was 6 hours in and still in Act 1, though I'm pretty sure I'm very close to finishing it.

[TheMightyEthan]

Oh yeah, I don't think that's the main or only reason either, but I do think it was a significant reason. I think what they learned from Ubisoft is that you don't admit that that's why you're doing it. Hence all the protesting about coop and whatnot. EA's doing something similar with SimCity V.

[Johnny]

@FLD: Wizard is pretty effective at killing things rapidly. On the other hand, if I fuck up I'm immediately dead.

[toxicitizen]

Ha, I hadn't even thought about different classes accounting for speed, but that actually makes sense. I'm a demon hunter, so I'm constantly dodging and running from crowds of enemies. That probably slows down progression quite a bit when you add it all up.

[Eleven]

Guys, it's OK to hate DRM, and curse it when it's on a game you can skip playing, but it's ok to cave in and tolerate the DRM and defend it because it's a game you think worth playing!

 

Yes, I'm being a troll. But that's honestly how I see this diablo 3 DRM thing. I don't have the game yet not because of the DRM, but because I'm not interested in playing it yet.

[toxicitizen]

Well I felt like playing just now but didn't want to start Act II tonight, so I started a barbarian instead and I can confirm that the stash is shared across characters. The stuff my demon hunter left in it was there for the barbarian to pick up. The blacksmith was also already there and upgraded but I already knew that from the beta.

[deanb]

No Offline mode or character just seems like they really fucked up. And yes Blizzard are said to be pretty independent meaning this decision is entirely their own. In fact COD, despite being mainly for the MP, isn't online-only and I don't think any Acti games are. It's pretty much a Blizzard-only thing at this point. WoW has no offline mode, but wow is also an MMO, there's no singleplayer. It also means at some point in the next few yeas Blizzard are either going to have to patch the game in such a away to play offline anyway, or just cripple the game and lock out peoples access to it ever again. There's folks playing DI n DII 15 years later without much issue (beyond compatibility) I'm not so sure the same can be said for Diablo III. Multi-player only games are the only games that should ever have an always-online component and there is no justification otherwise. If you cannot play a game on your own without requiring an internet connection then the game is fatally flawed and will be up until that bug is fixed.

 

And Johnny this isn't "Oh let's all hate on Blizzard now they're merged with Activision". People have the same issue with Sim City V and Ubisoft games too. Developer/publisher makes a bad call, folks call them out on it.

 

p.s: Diablo III uses the same ports and connections and all that that Starcraft II uses right? Just today part of my job is "make sure Diablo III will work in the office". Which is gonna be hard given we don't have access to the router. (See it already doesn't allow Steam traffic)

 

edit: You can't pause the game? lolwut. (Also Duke was telling me he had MMO lag yesterday, his character popping back to where it was a few seconds before. sounds fun)

[toxicitizen]

edit: You can't pause the game? lolwut. (Also Duke was telling me he had MMO lag yesterday, his character popping back to where it was a few seconds before. sounds fun)

I heard about this a while back and I'm not sure where this is coming from. I'm pretty sure the game pauses when I hit escape.

 

Hmm, some googling tells me apparently there's a period of time after which it auto unpauses or something. Weird. Though if you're going to leave the game unattended for an extended period of time I don't see why you wouldn't just use the town portal...

 

I did experience the character movement lag, though. It's pretty minor and hasn't happened to me very often but it's definitely something they need to fix.

[SomTervo]

Damn straight, dean. Especially when the whole thing causes lag if you're playing by yourself. That's just fucking (and I hate using this word) retarded. Really, really stupid, beyond belief. If you're playing single-player, a game loaded on your computer, with no required outside net connection to any servers or people, there should not be lag. It should just be running smooth off your hard drive.

 

It's not even fair enough if there is server-side processing; surely it wouldn't have been difficult to put this code into the game itself if the code is already written!