Diablo 3: Its the fault of the audience or the developers?

[Chunga the Great]

.....Am I the only one here who liked Diablo 3? It has its problems, but it's still a ton of fun.

 

[Signa]

I'm not sure what we are talking about, but every single one of my issues with Diablo 3 comes from choices the developers made. No two ways about that. Then there's the issues my friends are having (since I'm yet to play it), and those issues also stem from lack of dev creativity. What we got was a watered-down action RPG, with all of its central mechanics hinged on an auction house to earn the devs more money post-release. Simple as.

Suggesting the fan base had anything to do with it is just trying to mitigate the blame.

Could it be or the other, i dont know. It just that D3 looks and feels like the combination of EVERYTHING around the word "addicting" that made Wow and D2 successful and we end up with something that varely reasembles a game.

And like i said on the OP, it seems designed around making the late parts of D2 (when you are looking for loot on Inferno even when you already completed the story millions of times) more addictive and easy (in theory anyway)

That's still Blizzard's fault if they wanted to build the game around a few addicts. They spent their time looking at the fact that people still enjoy playing Diablo 2, and instead of asking "why is that?" they decided to ask "how can we make money off of them this far after release?" Blizzard's fault, simple as.

 

[DioWallachia]

The exploiters are more guilty than the exploitees.

That is kinda interesting. Do you think anyone would try to turn that around by saying: "Well, its in human nature to survive at all cost, so the exploiters were just adapting to the situation by using a flaw that the victim SHOULD had overcome to survive in this world. Its the VICTIM fault"

I better do that reply myself because otherwise it will go out of hand if someone else does it. At least i can stay calm for the sake of curiosity.

 

[DioWallachia]

That's still Blizzard's fault if they wanted to build the game around a few addicts. They spent their time looking at the fact that people still enjoy playing Diablo 2, and instead of asking "why is that?" they decided to ask "how can we make money off of them this far after release?" Blizzard's fault, simple as.

Alright, but WHO made that question:? "how can we make money off of them this far after release?" ?

I guess that one could simply blame Bliz for being part of Activision now, but just for disclosure, it would be nice to know WHEN did they started to smell the money FIRST before making a game out of it and not the other way around.

 

[DioWallachia]

.....Am I the only one here who liked Diablo 3? It has its problems, but it's still a ton of fun.

And that is fine, but don't you have that underlying feeling that the game COULD have been much more if they have done differently?

 

[Victoly]

www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117939-Diablo-II-Dev-Diablo-III-Was-Originally-an-MMO

Did you even read the article you just linked?

That was according to Max Schaefer, who LEFT BLIZZARD IN 2003.
Quote: "Schaefer left Blizzard North, taking a sizable chunk of Blizzard talent with him, to form Flagship Studios back in 2003."

Now, did you read what I actually wrote?
"...that was back before everyone who had worked on the earlier Diablo games left Blizzard 10 years ago."

HOLY SHIT I WAS SAYING EXACTLY WHAT THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED TO SAID. IT'S ALMOST LIKE I KNOW WHAT THE FUCK I'M TALKING ABOUT OR SOMETHING!!!!!

In any case, the whole "Is it an MMO?" debate is still a total red herring. It's irrelevant.

You kinda forgot (or didnt read what i say) but i said it bafles me how "they" (the developers) would try to make a shitty SB ON PURPOSE.

That's not what they're trying to do. They're trying to make a decent game; not a Skinner Box of any variety (shitty or otherwise). You're complaining that "it's like they want to make a bad shit-sandwich on purpose by taking out all the shit and replacing it with meat and vegetables." Your statements about Skinner Boxes don't make any sense, because you don't understand Ruzinus's initial use of the term. Which brings me to:

I agree with Ruzinus on the fact that "it didnt SB them hard enough", but on PURPOSE?

No, that's not what he was saying, and you've consistently misinterpreted his statements. He thought it was absurd that gamers would want a Skinner Box at all. Hence the irony of his "full circle / GG Humanity" statement, which went way over your head.

i dont care if the fanbase ACTUALLY wants to be SB as you said on the rest of the post, that isnt something i want to know, what i do want to know is if they really fucked up on purpose or by sheer incompetence.

So when you titled your thread "Its [sic] the fault of the audience or the developers?" you were being disingenuous and didn't actually want to hear what people had to say about the audience at all and only wanted to ***** about the development?

There are two states of D3: You either outgear an enemy and kill it, or you undergear an enemy and you die...usually really fast.

That's patently false. As someone who was making a habit of gradually altering my gear to include more and more magic find, I can tell you that there are various gradations of difficulty. You would have encountered those gradations of difficulty yourself if you hadn't just bought all of your gear on the auction house.

There are two states of difficulty that most players experience, which you have identified, but those are not the only states of difficulty possible. That "too hard or too easy" sensation you're talking about is a result of two things: players who get lazy and don't want to try harder or adapt their strategies when the game starts to challenge them (i.e. "too hard"), and the fact that it's really easy to give yourself a huge gear boost on the auction house. If you played the game without using the AH at all, your gear would build up very gradually, and you'd notice a much more gradual difficulty curve.

I agree that the balancing needs work, but not for the exact reasons you've described.

After all, isnt that the principle of all entertainment, "Show, Dont Tell?" ?

No, that's a suggested principle of film-making. Different mediums require different means.

And the atmosphere WAS there thanks to the execution of the plot.

I'm not sure you understand what the words "plot" and "atmosphere" actually mean. Diablo's plot was: "Uh-oh, there's bad stuff happening under the church! Better go check it out!" The atmosphere is completely separate from that. The "bad stuff" could have been giant bunnies that fart rainbows at you, and that wouldn't have changed the "plot" at all. It would have been a significant change to the atmosphere, however.

BUT I LOVE how you keep saying that D3 has a coherent plot...

I didn't say that D3 had a coherent plot; I said Blizzard tried to give D3 a coherent plot.

...because after all, if a "strategist" demon is telling me ALL his plans in advance (and for every step i take) its CLEAR that i, PUNY MORTAL, cannot comprehend the sheer magnificent bastardy of these TACTICAL GENIUS!!

I guess you didn't read the part where I specifically complained about the villains being absurd caricatures. Or perhaps those words were too big for you and you just didn't comprehend anything I said?

Y'see, there are different reasons for something to be bad or good, and things can be bad or good in different degrees. I can say "the voice acting is usually quite good, but the dialogue is written so poorly that it comes across with all the subtlety of a child's finger-painting" and I haven't contradicted myself. And if you say "no duh the voice acting is bad becuz they say stupid things lol" you are not actually addressing the words that I have written and we are not having a meaningful conversation.

 

[DioWallachia]

I would argue that it can't be the Devs that made a mistake because they made a shit ton of money and so many people play this game every day. Either the community is the largest collection of sadomasochists I've ever heard of, or they like the game and grumble about a few features and will just live with it.

Or instead of Sadomasochinst they could be, you know, innocent people who though that at least Bliz would not BETRAY them as.......The-Unmentionable-One.

People that had been following them and have certified the quality of their games and trust them enough to preorder and play the next game they make because, up until this point, they have been doing a nice job.

 

[Victoly]

.....Am I the only one here who liked Diablo 3? It has its problems, but it's still a ton of fun.

Nah, I had a good amount of fun with D3, but (like you) I also think it was flawed. Not "boo hoo I expected the second coming of Christ but all I got was this pretty good video game, omg I have been BETRAYED" flawed, like many seem to think. It was about what I expected. I'll probably come back to it for a bit when the PvP is finally released.

 

[Signa]

That's still Blizzard's fault if they wanted to build the game around a few addicts. They spent their time looking at the fact that people still enjoy playing Diablo 2, and instead of asking "why is that?" they decided to ask "how can we make money off of them this far after release?" Blizzard's fault, simple as.

Alright, but WHO made that question:? "how can we make money off of them this far after release?" ?

That's a stupid question. This isn't a chicken-and-egg scenario here. I see the angle you are going for, but it just doesn't work because. It's like you're trying to say that consumers created the demand for Diablo 3 by liking Diablo 2 too much. Diablo 2 was satisfying the demand for Diablo 2. If that wasn't good enough, then Diablo 3 still should have been more of Diablo 2, not Diablo 2-lite.

 

[DioWallachia]

HOLY SHIT I WAS SAYING EXACTLY WHAT THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED TO SAID. IT'S ALMOST LIKE I KNOW WHAT THE FUCK I'M TALKING ABOUT OR SOMETHING!!!!!

In any case, the whole "Is it an MMO?" debate is still a total red herring. It's irrelevant.

So? just because it was in 2003 doesn't mean that it changed to something else. As simple as that, i say they were lying to us about it being NOT a MMO because its an outdated/filthy word (kinda like how EA keep REPEATING that Brutal Legends WASNT a RTS in keep saying that it was more in the Hack & Slash) And for many other reasons.

A red herring? perhaps but i allow it as much as i allow...

So when you titled your thread "Its [sic] the fault of the audience or the developers?" you were being disingenuous and didn't actually want to hear what people had to say about the audience at all and only wanted to ***** about the development?

If you have been around for long enough, you may have noticed that i tend to talk about Red Letter Media a lot, but more importantly i liked how he compared compared the Prequels to Citizen Kane in how George Lucas is kinda like Charles Foster Kane, even if the main purpose of the videos is to ***** about Revenge of The Sith.

Same thing in this thread, the opinions of everybody is a nice addition but they forget the other side of the conversation, on how and WHY would the developers would play nice on the people.

You kinda forgot (or didnt read what i say) but i said it bafles me how "they" (the developers) would try to make a shitty SB ON PURPOSE.

That's not what they're trying to do. They're trying to make a decent game; not a Skinner Box of any variety (shitty or otherwise). You're complaining that "it's like they want to make a bad shit-sandwich on purpose by taking out all the shit and replacing it with meat and vegetables." Your statements about Skinner Boxes don't make any sense, because you don't understand Ruzinus's initial use of the term. Which brings me to:

I agree with Ruzinus on the fact that "it didnt SB them hard enough", but on PURPOSE?

No, that's not what he was saying, and you've consistently misinterpreted his statements. He thought it was absurd that gamers would want a Skinner Box at all. Hence the irony of his "full circle / GG Humanity" statement, which went way over your head.

He meant it ironically, i meant it for real. Yep, that is how i see people, it takes TWO for this abusive relationship. Because if you haven't noticed (and i quote myself here):

"why care for the customers if they arent smart enough to get away from this kind of bullshit? the fans deserve to be exploited."

The line between what is an absurd joke and what is for real has been broken a loooooong time ago, its the Poe's Law in full effect in the real world.
I fully expected for Bliz to "make a bad shit-sandwich on purpose by taking out all the good and expensive bits and replacing it with shitty imitations of vegetables" and for the audience to take it.

Instead we got: "make a GOOD-sandwich on purpose by taking out all the shit and replacing it with meat and vegetables"

You said: "That's not what they're trying to do. They're trying to make a decent game"
Can i ask again WHY? why fix what isnt broken? why care for such expensable fanbase? Why pretend they care all along? it seems that they are not talking much to the fans since D3 started, witch kinda reminds me how Bioware tries to cover its fuck ups by sabotaging the forums and pulling the "entitlement" card every second.

Why is that question so hard to answer?

After all, isnt that the principle of all entertainment, "Show, Dont Tell?" ?

No, that's a suggested principle of film-making. Different mediums require different means.

It applies to everything really (even games that use cutscenes and deprive power to the players and pretend they are a film), even books. There is a reason for why Twilight (books) is so hated you know? it talks more about things happening rather than WRITE and SHOW the things happening. It may have another name but the principle is the same. Here, have a videogame example:

Spoiler

And the atmosphere WAS there thanks to the execution of the plot.

I'm not sure you understand what the words "plot" and "atmosphere" actually mean. Diablo's plot was: "Uh-oh, there's bad stuff happening under the church! Better go check it out!" The atmosphere is completely separate from that. The "bad stuff" could have been giant bunnies that fart rainbows at you, and that wouldn't have changed the "plot" at all. It would have been a significant change to the atmosphere, however.

If you are admitting that the atmosphere changed just by adding bunnies then OF COURSE the plot had something to do with it. Just because its there for you of you want and not IN YOUR FACE doesn't mean that there isn't a plot, that is like saying that the Elder Scroll series didn't have a plot too (From Daggerfall, to Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim) Keep in mind that by atmosphere i dont mean music (like referring the soundtrack as atmospheric), its the sum of its part what MAKES an atmosphere and tone.

That is something worth discussing, assuming that the thread doesnt go to shit later. It kinda baffles me too how a game like, say, Metroid Prime, its being marked as not having a plot nor backstory when its clear that it is RIGHT THERE for you because it is just a collectable like everything else on the Metroid formula.

...because after all, if a "strategist" demon is telling me ALL his plans in advance (and for every step i take) its CLEAR that i, PUNY MORTAL, cannot comprehend the sheer magnificent bastardy of these TACTICAL GENIUS!!

I guess you didn't read the part where I specifically complained about the villains being absurd caricatures. Or perhaps those words were too big for you and you just didn't comprehend anything I said?

So i take that you cant take a joke with a straight face and prefer to NOT debuk the bit that was AFTER that:

"Its presentation was useless and was done in a way that remind me off all the games that sacrifices player interactions, to make sure they go the right way to have the story being "properly" told (The Stanley Parable would like to have a few words with the D3 team)"

CAPTCHA: "you're not listening"

Of course not, i READ.

 

[DioWallachia]

Developing standards isn't really something that happens from the audience's perspective. By large and by far, you need to show people something better for them to know better.

If they choose not to know better? as in, they were so addicted to ONE game or having a real life somewhere that they dont know any better, and for that they will defend the ONLY good thing they know.

 

[Victoly]

So? just because it was in 2003 doesn't mean that it changed to something else.

Except that the entire development team left Blizzard, and then Blizzard waited several years before re-starting Diablo 3 from scratch. Jay Wilson's Diablo 3 has nothing to do with Max Schaefer's Diablo 3, and so Schaefer's comments about his intentions for Diablo 3 have absolutely zero bearing on the Diablo 3 that was actually released.

In any case, I initially made the comment in response to what Draech said. The bottom line: It doesn't matter if D3 is an MMO or not.

...the opinions of everybody is a nice addition but they forget the other side of the conversation, on how and WHY would the developers would play nice on the people.

1) I addressed both the developers and the audience in my original explanation.
2) You are not a forum moderator and it is not your place to dictate what is and isn't permissible in the thread just because you started it. I'm free to contribute whatever I think is relevant, and forum moderators will decide whether or not I have crossed a line.

You said: "That's not what they're trying to do. They're trying to make a decent game"
Can i ask again WHY? why fix what isnt broken? why care for such expensable fanbase? Why pretend they care all along? it seems that they are not talking much to the fans since D3 started, witch kinda reminds me how Bioware tries to cover its fuck ups by sabotaging the forums and pulling the "entitlement" card every second.

Why is that question so hard to answer?

Well, it's somewhat hard to answer because you have very poor English skills and can't effectively communicate exactly what it is you're trying to ask (e.g. "expensable"?). Another part of it is that you're coming at this question with so much (unjustified) bias that it takes too much effort to dismantle all of your faulty assumptions. On a related note, these particular questions are difficult to answer because they're laced with rhetoric: "Why pretend they care?" is making unfounded assumptions about Blizzard's intentions. Finally, it's hard to answer because you've put three separate questions side-by-side and believe them to be a single question.

If you are admitting that the atmosphere changed just by adding bunnies then OF COURSE the plot had something to do with it. Just because its there for you of you want and not IN YOUR FACE doesn't mean that there isn't a plot, that is like saying that the Elder Scroll series didn't have a plot too (From Daggerfall, to Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim)

Keep in mind that by atmosphere i dont mean music (like referring the soundtrack as atmospheric), its the sum of its part what MAKES an atmosphere and tone.

Uhh... what? Bunnies were a hyperbolic example. And why exclude music? Music is a big part of a game's atmosphere. This only edifies my earlier claim that you have no idea what the word "atmosphere" means.

Let's use a different example, since bunnies seem to have baffled you. Let's say that every enemy in the game was wearing heart-pattern boxer shorts. That would change the atmosphere of the game quite a bit. It wouldn't change the plot at all.

So i take that you cant take a joke with a straight face and prefer to NOT debuk the bit that was AFTER that:

"Its presentation was useless and was done in a way that remind me off all the games that sacrifices player interactions, to make sure they go the right way to have the story being "properly" told (The Stanley Parable would like to have a few words with the D3 team)"

I don't have to "debuk" [sic] it (you mean "debunk") because I don't disagree with it.

You thought I was defending Diablo 3's stupid writing, and I wasn't. You tried to argue with me because you didn't understand my point and you thought I was defending D3's bad portrayal of villains. I don't have to debunk you when I happen to agree with you on something, numbskull.

 

[go-10]

fault of at what sure I haven't played the game in a WHILE, but after putting in 160+ hours into the game I think I got what I wanted
I can't even remember the last game I played more than 20 hours that wasn't a fighting game! So in that regard Diablo 3 is no ones fault its a great game that people are complaining about because they stop playing after 100 hour!

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

Diablo 3 isn't that fun anymore, but when PvP comes out I hope that'll be cool.

It's a videogame, they get boring after awhile. Simple as that.

 

[l0ckd0wn]

Which finally proves what everyone should've already known: Just doing whatever your biggest fans say you should isn't good game design.

QFT!

But Diablo 2 had a point, the grinding shit came as a side effect of the world created by its story.

But the grinding never ceased, and the story never changed... After you beat normal mode, you moved on to hardcore and nightmare... Nothing changed. However, the main redeeming factor to combat this was the random world generation; it created a new exploration itch every time you played the game, and by having special & unique monsters generate with random abilities/talents. It's one of the many reasons that Titan Quest, even being a better game all around comparatively to D2, just couldn't hold a flame to D2's user base.

IMHO, the #1 thing Blizzard North did right with D2 was create a game that APPEARED to be different every time you played.

I am starting to think that MMO for me might be how your game is affected by the playerbase as a whole. Werther it being directly or indirectly.

I think you hit the nail on the head here, however that leads us to...

In any case, the whole "Is it an MMO?" debate is still a total red herring. It's irrelevant.

This is true...

And the atmosphere WAS there thanks to the execution of the plot.

I'm not sure you understand what the words "plot" and "atmosphere" actually mean. Diablo's plot was: "Uh-oh, there's bad stuff happening under the church! Better go check it out!" The atmosphere is completely separate from that. The "bad stuff" could have been giant bunnies that fart rainbows at you, and that wouldn't have changed the "plot" at all. It would have been a significant change to the atmosphere, however.

Summed up; plot vs setting. It can also be argued that the "atmosphere" is dependent on the setting per scene. External elements that don't affect gameplay, like music, are just compliments as the music isn't actually needed, but does contribute to the atmosphere of the setting.

"why care for the customers if they arent smart enough to get away from this kind of bullshit? the fans deserve to be exploited."

But this makes the assumption that your opinion is in somehow superior to everyone else's, because obviously millions of people still play the game with the passion and love they had for D2. That doesn't make the game better, but it absolutely contradicts your narrow summary and opinion.

It applies to everything really (even games that use cutscenes and deprive power to the players and pretend they are a film), even books. There is a reason for why Twilight (books) is so hated you know? it talks more about things happening rather than WRITE and SHOW the things happening. It may have another name but the principle is the same. Here, have a videogame example:

Spoiler

That was a great watch. However I don't catch your point here at all. Could you elaborate on what you mean "it applies to everything really" because I disagree in that each medium has different ways of engaging the viewer/reader/player. 'Show' is great for movies; 'do' is great for games; and 'explanation/elaboration' is great for books. If you are shown to much in a game or book without being engaged, you lose interest; for games because you could be doing, and for books because you could be conceptualizing in your own head. For movies you can't do and if you explain to much, the story seems diluted and weak with a lack of character exploration because of over narration.

Uhh... what? Bunnies were a hyperbolic example. And why exclude music? Music is a big part of a game's atmosphere. This only edifies my earlier claim that you have no idea what the word "atmosphere" means.

Let's use a different example, since bunnies seem to have baffled you. Let's say that every enemy in the game was wearing heart-pattern boxer shorts. That would change the atmosphere of the game quite a bit. It wouldn't change the plot at all.

lulz@ the bunnys, I got what you were saying but I do think it was lost on Dio.

However, music may contribute to the atmosphere, yes, but it is not an actual element of the setting and just a colorful contribution to further immerse the player. The sound effects are arguably much more important for actually creating a proper setting. In most cases music is used as a segue between events or to highlight emotions, plot twists and keep the flow of the movie/cut scene together. One could argue it's not actually needed, but is more there as a luxury item that we come to expect.

To go along with your second statement there, Grotesque Tactics vs Armored Princess are great examples as one is purely satire while the other takes it's self quite seriously; the story telling in GT contrasts AP with absurd undertones and comedic relief while AP plays like the universe, the real one, is dependent upon your decisions.

 

[DioWallachia]

1) I addressed both the developers and the audience in my original explanation.
2) You are not a forum moderator and it is not your place to dictate what is and isn't permissible in the thread just because you started it. I'm free to contribute whatever I think is relevant, and forum moderators will decide whether or not I have crossed a line.

Of course i am not a moderator, but there is a FLAG over there just in case that, for some reason, one of you have crosses "the imaginary line." But since i said that i care for every detail until i am satisfied, i dont see why should do such thing. Still, i have to keep asking until i get it.

You said: "That's not what they're trying to do. They're trying to make a decent game"
Can i ask again WHY? why fix what isnt broken? why care for such expendable fanbase? Why pretend they care all along? it seems that they are not talking much to the fans since D3 started, witch kinda reminds me how Bioware tries to cover its fuck ups by sabotaging the forums and pulling the "entitlement" card every second.

Why is that question so hard to answer?

Well, it's somewhat hard to answer because you have very poor English skills and can't effectively communicate exactly what it is you're trying to ask (e.g. "expensable"?).

>Expendable<.

See? is not that hard to get that it was just a grammar error. Never heard of making sense within the context?

Another part of it is that you're coming at this question with so much (unjustified) bias that it takes too much effort to dismantle all of your faulty assumptions. On a related note, these particular questions are difficult to answer because they're laced with rhetoric: "Why pretend they care?" is making unfounded assumptions about Blizzard's intentions. Finally, it's hard to answer because you've put three separate questions side-by-side and believe them to be a single question.

Arent ALL the thread biased? for example, when the ME3 fiasco came out, all people accused Bioware first before doing any research that it was EA who put 2 of all the writers to make the ending. Did that stop the fans from making hate threads about it? of course not. Did that stop the people from RESPONDING to those threads? nope.
When one person makes a thread about hating EA, he is being biased, but he is not being called out for it because it HAPPENS to be EVERYONE opinion at that moment. At least they should have the decency of bringing facts to the conversation to send my bias (and everyone else) to the dust.

I think that my only error was not use the wordSuppose as in:

"Suppose that Bliz is just like every other company in this gaming era and jumped the bandwagon of NOT giving a fuck about caring for their customers. That they actually wanted to make a more merciless and addicting Skinner Box (in other words, a BETTER one than D2 in business perspective) to exploit the fans. After all, its THEIR fault for not being able to escape the SB, not Bliz, they are just trying to make money at ALL cost, games are expensive you know? and if they feel offended then they will use the "entitlement" card and pay every journalist to reinforce that only the rest of the public and problem solved. Why care about ruining the life of gamers if they dont have a life to begin with?"

Using 3 questions its a bad move, but still is part of a greater whole, a bigger question. In the other hand, the "Why its so hard to answer that question" still stands because refers to the same thing i have been asking all along.

If you are admitting that the atmosphere changed just by adding bunnies then OF COURSE the plot had something to do with it. Just because its there for you of you want and not IN YOUR FACE doesn't mean that there isn't a plot, that is like saying that the Elder Scroll series didn't have a plot too (From Daggerfall, to Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim)

Keep in mind that by atmosphere i dont mean music (like referring the soundtrack as atmospheric), its the sum of its part what MAKES an atmosphere and tone.

Uhh... what? Bunnies were a hyperbolic example. And why exclude music? Music is a big part of a game's atmosphere. This only edifies my earlier claim that you have no idea what the word "atmosphere" means.

Let's use a different example, since bunnies seem to have baffled you. Let's say that every enemy in the game was wearing heart-pattern boxer shorts. That would change the atmosphere of the game quite a bit. It wouldn't change the plot at all.

I didn't exclude the music. I was referring, just in case, that i am not counting the music ALONE as being a factor on the atmosphere. Remember what you wrote about:

"I can say "the voice acting is usually quite good, but the dialogue is written so poorly that it comes across with all the subtlety of a child's finger-painting" and I haven't contradicted myself. And if you say "no duh the voice acting is bad becuz they say stupid things lol""

I was trying to avoid the second thing, as in: "teh music feels atmospheric, SO LOGICALLY, the game can haz atmosphere. ME WIN!!11"

Still that doesnt mean that there was little plot to begin with, it exist only to reinforce the imagination and increase the atmosphere. Sort of like how Silent Hill makes a good atmosphere even if the plot is just "a father in search his daughter in a town that seems to be alive and malevolent" but that doesnt mean it doesnt work.

Its the problem that MrBtounge2 already explained in its video, its a misunderstanding that people keep doing for some reason.

So i take that you cant take a joke with a straight face and prefer to NOT debuk the bit that was AFTER that:

"Its presentation was useless and was done in a way that remind me off all the games that sacrifices player interactions, to make sure they go the right way to have the story being "properly" told (The Stanley Parable would like to have a few words with the D3 team)"

I don't have to "debuk" [sic] it (you mean "debunk") because I don't disagree with it.

You thought I was defending Diablo 3's stupid writing, and I wasn't. You tried to argue with me because you didn't understand my point and you thought I was defending D3's bad portrayal of villains. I don't have to debunk you when I happen to agree with you on something, numbskull.

BUT I SAID IT WAS A JO.....ah fuck it. Then again you could have just said that it is basically the same as you just said.

 

[DioWallachia]

It applies to everything really (even games that use cutscenes and deprive power to the players and pretend they are a film), even books. There is a reason for why Twilight (books) is so hated you know? it talks more about things happening rather than WRITE and SHOW the things happening. It may have another name but the principle is the same. Here, have a videogame example:

Spoiler

That was a great watch. However I don't catch your point here at all. Could you elaborate on what you mean "it applies to everything really" because I disagree in that each medium has different ways of engaging the viewer/reader/player. 'Show' is great for movies; 'do' is great for games; and 'explanation/elaboration' is great for books. If you are shown to much in a game or book without being engaged, you lose interest; for games because you could be doing, and for books because you could be conceptualizing in your own head. For movies you can't do and if you explain to much, the story seems diluted and weak with a lack of character exploration because of over narration.

Well of course there is a balance that must be had when doing the "Show, Dont Tell", but my point still stands because i already said that the words and the methods may change from medium to medium but its the same principle and core.

How balanced? i dont fucking know, i am not a writer nor a professional.

HOWEVER, this point of yours is what i want to know....

"why care for the customers if they arent smart enough to get away from this kind of bullshit? the fans deserve to be exploited."

But this makes the assumption that your opinion is in somehow superior to everyone else's, because obviously millions of people still play the game with the passion and love they had for D2. That doesn't make the game better, but it absolutely contradicts your narrow summary and opinion.

You are getting closer. If i fuck up this next part then i dont know what to do next.

I guess the fault of my post is that i didnt build up enough context. For example, are you aware of the phrase "Thing that man were not meant to know"? or "loss of innocence"? That is how i see a DEVELOPER of a videogame.

Think about it, one would say that videogames are all about the fun, right? so logically, as long it is fun its a "good" game right? But then it comes the Skinner Box that the developers learned that it is a REALLY powerful tool. Here is the thing, this addictive method isnt fun per se but MAKES YOU BELIEVE IT IS because you are getting little rewards every time, its an illusion, a lie.
How would a developer that honestly believed that games were about the fun react? wasn't HIS way of thinking that as long its fun its a good game? yet more games that use the SB end up making lots of profit and the players are happy as fuck, they LOVE being lied to, it isn't fun and yet here they are playing until they DIE for it.
These are not nice things to know. How can HE now know from now on if the next thing gamers love with a passion ISNT another mechanism to keep them addicted? isnt there anything genuinely good without trying to pull our mental and hearth strings?

And you respond "Because OBVIOUSLY millions of people still play the game with the passion and love..." Sure they do, they have been....."indoctrinated" to love it. See what i mean now?

 

[Ruzinus]

"Suppose that Bliz is just like every other company in this gaming era and jumped the bandwagon of NOT giving a fuck about caring for their customers. That they actually wanted to make a more merciless and addicting Skinner Box (in other words, a BETTER one than D2 in business perspective) to exploit the fans. After all, its THEIR fault for not being able to escape the SB, not Bliz, they are just trying to make money at ALL cost, games are expensive you know? and if they feel offended then they will use the "entitlement" card and pay every journalist to reinforce that only the rest of the public and problem solved. Why care about ruining the life of gamers if they dont have a life to begin with?"

Using 3 questions its a bad move, but still is part of a greater whole, a bigger question. In the other hand, the "Why its so hard to answer that question" still stands because refers to the same thing i have been asking all along.

1. That question is loaded as hell, since it starts with the assumption that "every company doesn't care about gamers."

2. It's a really stupid question, and your... well I called it vagueness, but Vitoly was more honest, makes it hard to know just what you're asking, and people are giving you the benefit of the doubt and assigning more intelligent questions to the space before your question marks.

What your saying basically amounts to this: Why would game designers want to design games? Why would they want to improve upon old designs and why would they want to try to make the best game they could? Why would creative people take a risk?

All of which has been answered.

It is because they're game designers.

It's kind of obvious.


Yes, there are suits at Activision that care primarily about profit. But those suits aren't the actual game designers. Game designers tend to be people who got into that job because their primary interest and concern is, wouldyafuckinbelieveit, designing games.

Why would such a person do anything other than try to make the best game they could?

That's rhetorical, don't answer it. The answer is that they wouldn't.