Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leatra]

It's DIABLO dude. I was having high expectations about this game 10 years ago.

But then again, all these other games similiar to Diablo really spoiled me.

[Carrion]

If a theme and aesthetic look like shit... well... then they look like shit, and should be changed.

I'd agree with you if "D2 is one of the best games ever" wasn't a fairly oft-repeated argument. It hasn't been brought up here that much, I'll give you that. I meant something like: if people could see the lack of endgame, broken skills, LCS issues and shallow world generation of D2

The aesthetic of Diablo II is the only reason I ever think about that game anymore.  That's what has proved the most long-lasting.  Otherwise I am almost violently opposed to the idea of playing it ever again.  Obviously, then, you'll not here me make that argument about it being the 'best ever.'  I'd hope, actually, that if I am speaking and acting as a logical person, that I'd never make a statement as idiotic as
"BLANK is the best BLANK ever."

All that said, I stand by my previous comment, especially in regards to the issues you've raised against the game.  What is "endgame" anyways?  What was "endgame" in 2000?  Maybe some EverQuest kids were concerned about it, but in Diablo II?  My point is that Diablo II was doing some pretty outstanding things for a game of its time.  Sure, the level generation ins't extraordinarily varied but it was one of the few high profile games attempting something like that at its time.  And sure, the skills were always in need of re-balancing, just like any game nowadays which offers such a variety of choice.  Again, there was nothing else like it at the time which offered what Diablo II offered.  That's why we're having this conversation right now, for better or for worse.

...without years of feelgood to back it up, would it still be the go-to comparsion it is now? I'd guess not.

It's odd to me that you'd want to do this in the first place.  Diablo II was a defining moment in computer gaming.  It and the original defined a new type of gameplay, for better or worse, and then went on to improve and widdle down that experience in such a way that it has stuck with us these 12 years.  It doesn't matter if you take away the nostalgia factor, Diablo and Diablo II have their place in time and unless you start removing them from that context (which I've already said doesn't make sense), they will always be the defining moment of their genre and hence, the go-to comparison.

[V-Norrec]

When they charge 80 or 90 dollars or whatever, people do tend to have their expectations rather high, yes. This is justified by the cost. I dont think a "decent time waster" should cost that much. It is competing with alot of other, cheaper games.

I dont know why people frequently ignore price when it comes to judging a game (this applies not only to diablo). When I judge a game, its always

Code: [Select]

quality = (price > 1 ? entertainment/price : entertainment)


$90 Dollars. . . not in America at least, it's $60 here, (or at least was, considering I'm rather out of the market now that I own one copy).  That's your standard price for a new non-indie game release.  I'd say I got my money's worth.  Also, your supposed mathematical formula doesn't make any sense.  You can't have both "=" and ">" in the same equation, "?" Isn't a function and ":" is also not a function.

So ultimately we have

Quality = Entertainment/price, which I'm going to assume you meant

Quality = (Entertainment gained from given object (Diablo 3)/Entertainment gained from other sources within the same budget)

So in my area, I could go see about 3 movies, approx. 5 hours of watching movies we'll say.  I could go out for a couple of nice dinners with my lady friend.  I could spend it all for one night of drunkenness.  So basically the equation will, for me (I repeat) boil down to

Quality = (Entertainment gained from Diablo 3/Entertainment gained from 5 hours of movies OR having nice dinners with my fiancé OR getting passed-out drunk).

Having spent something like 50 Hours (low estimate) in Diablo, I've spent at least 10 more hours being entertained than movies, of course I like spending time with my fiancee as well but the cost of Diablo has not cost me as much time, so the opportunity/cost is mostly a monetary cost so I will discount the second option, I just included it for reference to popular activities others might be comparing it to.  Let's just settle it down to movies because I like those the most so it'll provide the best comparison

The next step would be assigning an average entertainment value to both activities.  I'll be using a 1-10 scale, with 1 being the most boring (watching TV) and 10 being the most entertaining ("time" with my fiancé *wink wink nudge nudge*)  In that scale I'd give Diablo something between a 5 and a 6, so we'll be going with a 5 just to go with the lower estimate, again.  The very best movies I would give a 6 in entertainment value, most being a 4.  So I'll even give the three movies I could see the benefit of the doubt and give it a 6.

The formula for entertainment should then be, Hours of Entertainment given/Average Entertainment Value.

Diablo 3 Entertainment = 50/5 = 10
3 Good Movies = 5/6 = 5/6

This doesn't seem fair because I'm only accounting for seeing the movies once, when I've played through Diablo 3, 3 times so I'll adjust it even.

Diablo 3 Entertainment 18/5 = 3.4
3 Good Movies = 5/6 = 5/6

So ultimately, using your formula

Quality = 3.4 / (5/6)

Or a 4, Diablo roughly scores a 4. 

However that means nothing because it's not part of a scale or anything.  Ultimately the entire formula is rather useless and entertainment is all imaginary, perceived differently by each individual, trying the turn entertainment into a mathematical formula is... well stupid.  I'm just as stupid though for taking the time to write all of this out just to prove the point though.  As is quality, it is all perceived, subjective really with regards to this matter.

[Darkmere]

(For Length)

I think we're mostly in agreement. I quit vanilla D2 5 or 6 years ago and can't play it anymore, so I'm with you on the "can't play it anymore." Aesthetics are personal preference, so we can agree to disagree. Endgame though... Even the original developers said cow farm runs and following a teleporting paladin to baal repeatedly was not their intention. Later moves towards pit-farming were a bit of a solution, so I'm choosing to take that as proof that end-game variability existed as a desirable goal then.

To clarify, when I say skills are broken, I'm not using that term as a balance issue, per se. I mean a skill literally is untenable for its intended use. Amazons' Fend ability is a prime example in that it's supposed to work like Zeal (multi-target melee attack) that is bugged to miss every hit in the sequence if the amazon dodges during the swing animation. Zon passives revolved around dodging, so the bug made fend unusable. To my knowledge, it was never fixed. All I'm saying is, something like that should have been a priority.

I'll also agree that D2 was a high watermark for gaming. When I say nostalgia should be factored out, I mean direct comparisons to D2 as the only applicable aRPG. I think other titles released since have gotten less than due credit, such as Titan Quest for stat/skill trees, Dungeon Siege 2 for class viability and party structure, or FATE and Torchlight for casual-oriented play. To put it another way, it seems like comparing every shooter directly to DOOM, forever.

[SalmonGod]

I judge a game by how memorable the experience of playing it was.  If I can remember clearly and fondly 5 years later, then I consider it to have enriched my life.  That's what I want.  Something that enriches my overall experience of life.  By this measure, there are games I've dumped a lot of time into that were really bad, and other games that were really short but amazing (Limbo most recently).  D2 was mediocre, but highly addicting, which isn't always a good thing.

[Mephansteras]

I've always found the original Diablo to be the best. Went back recently to replay both D1 and D2, and found D1 to be a much better game overall. It has its problems, to be sure, but I actually finished it with several characters. D2 I played for about an hour before I got bored of it again.

[nenjin]

I still like D1 for all the things it did differently than D2. (Dungeons felt, I dunno, less formulaic. Hunting for spells in bookcases was the best too, as opposed to "DERP, HAVE ANOTHER SCROLL ADVENTURER!)

I find it hard to go back and replay it for long though.

[alexandertnt]

$90 Dollars. . . not in America at least, it's $60 here, (or at least was, considering I'm rather out of the market now that I own one copy).  That's your standard price for a new non-indie game release.  I'd say I got my money's worth.  Also, your supposed mathematical formula doesn't make any sense.  You can't have both "=" and ">" in the same equation, "?" Isn't a function and ":" is also not a function.

Thats how much it is in Australia. But every game here is very expensive. 

Also you are correct, ? and : are not functions, but they are a ternary operator. (the [code ] tag...)

[Rose]

yeah, in C++, a > b ? c : d translates to if(a > b) then c, else d

[Leatra]

$90 Dollars. . . not in America at least, it's $60 here, (or at least was, considering I'm rather out of the market now that I own one copy).  That's your standard price for a new non-indie game release.  I'd say I got my money's worth.  Also, your supposed mathematical formula doesn't make any sense.  You can't have both "=" and ">" in the same equation, "?" Isn't a function and ":" is also not a function.

Thats how much it is in Australia. But every game here is very expensive. 

Also you are correct, ? and : are not functions, but they are a ternary operator. (the [code ] tag...)

Games here are the 1/10 of the average income of a citizen. If you are going to buy a game, you are gonna have to spend months with it.

[Nadaka]

yeah, in C++, a > b ? c : d translates to if(a > b) then c, else d

And java, and c#, and javascript... basically all the curly brace languages.

[V-Norrec]

yeah, in C++, a > b ? c : d translates to if(a > b) then c, else d

And java, and c#, and javascript... basically all the curly brace languages.

I don't see how writing it out so everyone can read it rather than just people who have had some kind of introduction to programming works towards serving your purposes.  It is nearly as simple to write it out and more accessible to people like me who have elected to learn more about the physical network than programming.

[Carrion]

I think we're mostly in agreement. I quit vanilla D2 5 or 6 years ago and can't play it anymore, so I'm with you on the "can't play it anymore." Aesthetics are personal preference, so we can agree to disagree. Endgame though... Even the original developers said cow farm runs and following a teleporting paladin to baal repeatedly was not their intention. Later moves towards pit-farming were a bit of a solution, so I'm choosing to take that as proof that end-game variability existed as a desirable goal then.

Of course, agreeing to disagree, but it truly strikes me as though the aesthetics are the most appropriate for the subject matter and all that tied together is what stays with me.  Anyways...  I would point out that the entire game is based on variability which then is carried through past the final boss to the open-ending/reset which allowed you to do it all over again, but with whatever level/items/etc. you had afterwards.  It wasn't until later that they started pulling out the Tristram "end-gamey" uber boss stuff.  But I agree, if that open-endedness which allowed you to go get more exp and items is "end-game" enough, then it had an "end-game."  I would just comment that its ability to allow you to continue wanting to play and gather, whatever, is probably a product of the core game mechanics, more than it is a concerted effort to keep players interested in the game after the game ends.

To clarify, when I say skills are broken, I'm not using that term as a balance issue, per se. I mean a skill literally is untenable for its intended use. Amazons' Fend ability is a prime example in that it's supposed to work like Zeal (multi-target melee attack) that is bugged to miss every hit in the sequence if the amazon dodges during the swing animation. Zon passives revolved around dodging, so the bug made fend unusable. To my knowledge, it was never fixed. All I'm saying is, something like that should have been a priority.

I didn't know about that, probably because I didn't really get into amazons.  But debating the merits of the skill trees (bugged as they may be) is a whole other beast and I'll keep quiet about that.

I'll also agree that D2 was a high watermark for gaming. When I say nostalgia should be factored out, I mean direct comparisons to D2 as the only applicable aRPG. I think other titles released since have gotten less than due credit, such as Titan Quest for stat/skill trees, Dungeon Siege 2 for class viability and party structure, or FATE and Torchlight for casual-oriented play. To put it another way, it seems like comparing every shooter directly to DOOM, forever.

I would definitely agree that there are some great games whose likeness to D2 led to it's passing over, or writing off by many--my younger self included.  Obviously, that's not ideal, but I'm guessing the one's who hold on to D2 as being the "best ever" probably don't much care for the nuances nor will they pay attention to the larger whole of what they are talking about (there's my straw-man argument).  All I wanted to point out is that it's not entirely baseless or silly for these folks to exist.

[Ivefan]

I would definitely agree that there are some great games whose likeness to D2 led to it's passing over, or writing off by many--my younger self included.  Obviously, that's not ideal, but I'm guessing the one's who hold on to D2 as being the "best ever" probably don't much care for the nuances nor will they pay attention to the larger whole of what they are talking about (there's my straw-man argument).  All I wanted to point out is that it's not entirely baseless or silly for these folks to exist.

Like you I haven't played vanilla d2 for 4-5 years but before that i took it out for a spin about once a year so i would like to think that its not nostalgia talking. D2 isn't the "best ever" in my opinion though it's the best so far because the other games simply has not been as entertaining. The game that came the closest was probably Dungeon siege 1.

[alexandertnt]

I don't see how writing it out so everyone can read it rather than just people who have had some kind of introduction to programming works towards serving your purposes.  It is nearly as simple to write it out and more accessible to people like me who have elected to learn more about the physical network than programming.

It is much easier and faster to express some things in that form, instead of the messy hack that is the English language. Though I agree that its meaning is not apparent to many people. Next time, I will try to avoid using the inline if/else operator (which is somewhat less clear than if x then y else z). The if/else was there to prevent issues with free games, otherwise it would be dividing by zero, and something like a 1c indie bundle could produce ludicrously large quality values from dividing by 0.01. Of course there is no actual formula to calculate accurately the value/quality etc of a game, but I put that up there to show that when I do look at a game, the price of the game is a significant issue.

Also, on your earlier post, you compared Diablo's entertainment to movies. Given the price and length of movies, it is not at all suprising that many people would rank Diablo above a movie. I woudn't, despite not being particularly interested in movies. But movies do have some advantages IMO, namely not doleing out plot at glacial speeds and not being padded out with having to complete the same repetitive action for hours on end. But if you do like doing said action, then it will probably last longer and be more cost-efficient than movies will. But my post was more about comparing games to games, and the competition that Diablo faces.