Diablo 3

[ArchAngel]

You stock up for the winter. Or, you know, until the Halloween and christmas sales.

[GarthVader]

Haha, too right.

Mebbe, we'll see. I can only handle so much. XD

[blacksinow]

I will be getting torchlight 2, personally. Ever since the big attack speed nerf, it became a clear sign to me that there is no point for me in hoping that they will find a way to run diablo 3 on the Intel GMA 4500 cards.

[ArchAngel]

Intel GMA 4500? Are you running it from a netbook?

I feel for you, man. I was there. Wanna get into Retro gaming? Gog.com will hook you up.

[blacksinow]

About everytime as of recent I've tried to play gog games, they've all crashed. But not being able to play diablo 3 isn't the worst thing in the world. I honestly think blizzard is getting worse, and after hearing of the horrid speed nerf, I wouldn't buy the game now if someone paid me.

[ArchAngel]

Yeah, yeah. It's mostly entitled gamers complaining. Turns out, the game is still fun.
Games need to be balanced and nerfing is an unavoidable reality when trying to make a balanced game, so they can suck it.
These people haven't designed a thing in their lives, but I bet they have a great idea for the new MMORPG.

[blacksinow]

There are alot of things that anyone can say, do I need to start saying those things? With that said, a nerf that consists of reducing attack speed by over fifty percent is simply unneeded in some circumstances, especially given how difficult Diablo 3 currently is in some difficulty modes. What point is a difficulty that only a small percent of the gamer population can complete? And considering that this is Blizzard, rather then a more reputable company, your response is unfounded.

There's a difference between common sense, and a case of programmer pride. What're you going to do next? Defend ET the Game for Atari? ROFL!!! What's your excuse for them? Or even Superman 64? What about Big Riggs over the Road Racing?

[ArchAngel]

First, this is about Game Design and not programming. Programmers generally don't get a say in game design.

Secondly, this isn't about reducing attack speed in total, it's about reducing the attack speed bonus on items; it was a very over-powered stat and made other stats almost unchoosable by comparison. Not that you'd know, because apparently, you don't play it.

Thirdly, the game isn't uncompletable by a small percentage of the gamer population. There's really quite a large amount of people who beat it at Inferno, but for a casual gamer, playing at Normal, Nightmare and Hell could be just fine (and get to level 60, the hard level cap). You don't miss out on any of the story and the final difficulty is for the gamer who wants more. If you didn't know, to get to Inferno, you'd have to play through the whole campaign 3 times, so you don't miss a whole lot.

Fourthly, somehow Blizzard being a reputable company makes me sticking up for their decisions "unfounded." So, if they were not reputable, I might have a better stance? I'm not quite sure if you know how this works...
Look, Blizzard has quite a reputation with releasing fixes that nerf builds left and right. If you didn't know, balancing an multiplayer RPG is quite a difficult task. The more expanded it becomes, the options you have to consider grow exponentially and you simply can't keep track of all. Hence fixes and nerfs after release. The gamers will find which work and which disproportionally work and stats need to be fixed in order to balance the choices.

Fifthly, somehow you made the connection between defending a game design choice from one of the most prestigious studios around (and mind you, I can go further into why the choice to nerf item attack speed bonuses is a good one) between defending some of the categorically worst games out there.
Maybe game design is a mysterious concept to you, but it's good game design practices, like balancing out build choices, that separate good games like D3 from the poor ones. Yes, some gamers will be butthurt that their build depending on an overpowered option will become less powerful, but that's an inevitability. They'll rant on about it, but they'll still sink another 100 hours in D3, and not other games.


You know, if you don't know about something, it's okay to just admit it. We don't have to take the long way around and have me show you why you're wrong.

[blacksinow]

Yes, but where would the fun be in that?

[Drewsov]

You know, if you don't know about something, it's okay to just admit it. We don't have to take the long way around and have me show you why you're wrong.

No, no, please do. It's really entertaining.

Also, I don't get complaining about Diablo 3. I also don't get complaining about games that you haven't played, or that haven't been released.

Yes, there's broken stuff in Diablo 3. But none of that "broken stuff" is actually the stuff that people are complaining about.

[ArchAngel]

Yes, but where would the fun be in that?

This is true...


I just get the feeling a mod *coughJestercough* won't be happy with the tirades.

[blacksinow]

You know, if you don't know about something, it's okay to just admit it. We don't have to take the long way around and have me show you why you're wrong.

No, no, please do. It's really entertaining.

Also, I don't get complaining about Diablo 3. I also don't get complaining about games that you haven't played, or that haven't been released.

Yes, there's broken stuff in Diablo 3. But none of that "broken stuff" is actually the stuff that people are complaining about.

You mean for example, like blizzard excluding the rest of us from playing the game? Yes, I could spend another 500 (I'm being optimistic) to 2900 dollars to buy a PC that can run Diablo 3 and pass the video check, but is it practical? No it isn't.. Blizzard could have designed the game inmind for a wider customer base by designing the game with Intel GMA 4500 cards inmind, and would have made more money on the game (provided those people didn't bother with the annual pass) then they are now. The game would have still been an enjoyable experience. And please do not bother preaching to me about graphics cards.

[ArchAngel]

[blacksinow]

First off, let's stop this schpiel where you say I'm wrong that great games can be optimized and work on lower spec systems. Because I'm right in this regard, games such as the Old Republic, Rift, and Phantasy Star Online 2 are great examples of games that run very well on low end systems without sacrificing. Blizzard is notoriously bad about this, as are most companies in today's world. If you must continue the big ridicule fight, then I'd be more then happy to continue.

[ArchAngel]

It's hard to tell when you talk like modern games should run just fine on an integrated graphics card intended for netbooks.

It's not about ridiculing, it's just that whenever you write, I get the sense that you have no idea how these things work but, regardless, you seem to feel really, really confident in it.