129 réponses à ce sujet

[stysiaq]

I'll put it that way - D2 was really well done. Wasn't great, but I liked the art style, the music (probably the strongest point), the cinematics beteween the acts, the characters and their skill sets. Also, the monsters and the way they died, often in an appaling way. D3 is different, but even if it wasn't resembling Warcraft so much, I wouldn't buy it. Such simple game is not worth the price. Also, it adds almost nothing to its genre, and it's been almost 11 years since LoD.

Looking at BioWares games, you can at least give them credit, that they try different things with their genre. Like going for the conversation wheel and fully oiced PC, rather than mute, all written sentences. Blizzard just waits a decade and releases a game with outdated gameplay, and everyone claps their hands and calls it "traditional", omitting the fact, that the company didn't even bother to try new ways of hack 'n slashing.

If I really waited 10 years for another Diablo I'd be pissed.they didn't invent even a single new thing. Not worth 60 bucks.

Also, I read the Diablo III plot. It's a joke. I know it's a hack 'n slash, but suddenly telling the players that D1 warrior background is really dumb.

[MadRabbit999]

stysiaq wrote...

Also, I read the Diablo III plot. It's a joke. I know it's a hack 'n slash, but suddenly telling the players that D1 warrior background is really dumb.

I read that ME3 ending was perfect...

Ah wait.. not everything you read on the internet is true.. I forgot...

Guess I will stop listening to internet idiots, and get my own opinions.

Modifié par MadRabbit999, 22 mai 2012 - 12:16 .

[CroGamer002]

MadRabbit999 wrote...

stysiaq wrote...

Also, I read the Diablo III plot. It's a joke. I know it's a hack 'n slash, but suddenly telling the players that D1 warrior background is really dumb.

I read that ME3 ending was perfect...

Ah wait.. not everything you read on the internet is true.. I forgot...

Guess I will stop listening to internet idiots, and get my own opinions.

I think he meant he read plot summary of Diablo 3, not read an opinion of someone.

[Navasha]

Well, I am loving Diablo 3. Brings back good memories, even if this one does seem a lot easier. I also think ME3 is a great game. Guess where that leaves me on the "trust" factor of metacritic scores?

[stysiaq]

Yes, I read the plot summary, and Diablo Wiki confirms it. Don't want to post spoilers here, but let's say it would be equivalent to learning, that Garrus is actually Sarens brother, and Anderson is Shepards uncle.

and it gets even worse if you're playing the barbarian male, which is confirmed to be D2s barbarian, but older.

Modifié par stysiaq, 22 mai 2012 - 12:31 .

[CrazyBirdman]

i.imgur.com/wfLQN.png 
Somehow that is now pretty much the standard for hype game, even Portal 2 was badly reviewed by users at launch. 
I always only take user scores on Metacritic serious if the game is at least one year out.
But I am not playing Diablo III, so I cannot really comment on that score.

Modifié par CrazyBirdman, 22 mai 2012 - 12:34 .

[MadRabbit999]

Mesina2 wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

stysiaq wrote...

Also, I read the Diablo III plot. It's a joke. I know it's a hack 'n slash, but suddenly telling the players that D1 warrior background is really dumb.

I read that ME3 ending was perfect...

Ah wait.. not everything you read on the internet is true.. I forgot...

Guess I will stop listening to internet idiots, and get my own opinions.

I think he meant he read plot summary of Diablo 3, not read an opinion of someone.

The only way at the moment you can get D3 plot is by reading people reviews.

That means

1. You will get facts influenced by personal opinions, which in  the end might distort the truth or reflect mainly the weaker points of the story.

2.Unless you are reading a book, or watching a movie, a story in a videogame has to be experienced in order to work, not read.

M3 current story, would not work on a movie for example, unelss heavily edited, but then you end up having people  hating it because it does not feel like the game, which notion of course is rather absurd, because one  is to be watched, and the other to be experienced (Apples and oranges). Videogame plots =/= Movie plots

stysiaq wrote...

Yes, I read the plot summary, and Diablo
Wiki confirms it. Don't want to post spoilers here, but let's say it
would be equivalent to learning, that Garrus is actually Sarens brother,
and Anderson is Shepards uncle.

and it gets even worse if you're playing the barbarian male, which is confirmed to be D2s barbarian, but older.

That is utter BS.. there is no such revelation the whole story from classic characters.

Also I do not see entirely far fetched that Garrus could be family related to Saren, is not like it would mean Garrus suddenly turns evil and becomes the new Saren, does it?

Modifié par MadRabbit999, 22 mai 2012 - 12:41 .

[stysiaq]

MadRabbit999 wrote...

stysiaq wrote...

Yes, I read the plot summary, and Diablo
Wiki confirms it. Don't want to post spoilers here, but let's say it
would be equivalent to learning, that Garrus is actually Sarens brother,
and Anderson is Shepards uncle.

and it gets even worse if you're playing the barbarian male, which is confirmed to be D2s barbarian, but older.

That is utter BS.. there is no such revelation the whole story from classic characters.

 

which of it exactly is utter bull****? Ok, so I'll say exactly what I mean. D3 tells you, that the D1 warrior character was actually a prince, and as such a brother to the first Diablo 'vessel'. I find it really dumb, and contridactory with the character exposition in the previous games, where he is a man without even a name. And D3 barbarian is the D2 barbarian.

 

Also I do not see entirely far fetched that Garrus could be family related to Saren, is not like it would mean Garrus suddenly turns evil and becomes the new Saren, does it?

So, if Garrus suddenly said "Do you remember that Saren guy? He was my brother by the way", you wouldn't mind, I'm shocked.

[Armass81]

I dont really care about the story in D3 to be honest. Its a game where you slaughter hordes of demons and loot. Thats about it. Its mindless fun to me. I dont play it for the epic story.

[MadRabbit999]

stysiaq wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

stysiaq wrote...

Yes, I read the plot summary, and Diablo
Wiki confirms it. Don't want to post spoilers here, but let's say it
would be equivalent to learning, that Garrus is actually Sarens brother,
and Anderson is Shepards uncle.

and it gets even worse if you're playing the barbarian male, which is confirmed to be D2s barbarian, but older.

That is utter BS.. there is no such revelation the whole story from classic characters.

 

which of it exactly is utter bull****? Ok, so I'll say exactly what I mean. D3 tells you, that the D1 warrior character was actually a prince, and as such a brother to the first Diablo 'vessel'. I find it really dumb, and contridactory with the character exposition in the previous games, where he is a man without even a name. And D3 barbarian is the D2 barbarian.

 

Also I do not see entirely far fetched that Garrus could be family related to Saren, is not like it would mean Garrus suddenly turns evil and becomes the new Saren, does it?

So, if Garrus suddenly said "Do you remember that Saren guy? He was my brother by the way", you wouldn't mind, I'm shocked.

Yeah.. that revelation was done during D2... it's over 10 years old, it was in the game ,but in the books was better underlined.

Regarding Garrus, no... that would not work.. but if by a series of discoveries you would come to learn that Saren was Garrus lost brother, then why not? Famous plays and well written narrative often involves characters later on having relations to each others.

But I think this is a different case from what you are trying to say, which is "They changed the character of D1 suddenly during the making of D2"

Yes, true they did, but because in D1, you played  3 charactes, 1 had to kill Diablo, if they didn't go this way then the story of D2 would hold no weight, I mean the "Dark Wanderer" was meant to be the previous hero, he always had, who cares if you did not know his background? Is not THAT shocking to be honest, it just had no relevance until the story of D3. You di not need to know about Saren's family don't you? It is just not a relevant aspect of ME1, however if in ME4, you would have Saren's brother.. it would not come as a shock since we never heard of his background.

A character needs to evolve through a series, otherwise it becomes boring and stagnant.

Tali evolved int oa mature confident-ish girl, so did Liara, and the best of them all is Jack for becoming a "nice girl" thanks to Shepard.....

Mind I am saying "evolving" not changing who they are, there is a difference, but this has nothing to do with their mostly untold backgrounds, which could be anything.

Modifié par MadRabbit999, 22 mai 2012 - 01:18 .

[The Angry One]

I'm sorry did you expect writing quality from Chris Metzen?
This is the guy who had his author's pet self insertion character removed as leader of the Horde in World of Warcraft in order to distance him from the war atrocities they were performing and also turn him into Jesus.

Metzen makes Walters look like Shakespeare. On the other hand he's never deliberately torpedoed his entire worlds. Yet.

[Navasha]

Armass81 wrote...

I dont really care about the story in D3 to be honest. Its a game where you slaughter hordes of demons and loot. Thats about it. Its mindless fun to me. I dont play it for the epic story.

QFT.     Anyone who was expecting some mind-blowing story from Diablo 3 isn't really getting the whole point to the game.  

[Slayer299]

No, ME3's not a great game up to the ending, the ending is just the icing on the cake. But the Diablo III metacritic scores because of the problems from launch with the servers, error messages to keep you from playing and the online only to play.

[Aurica]

leapingmonkeys wrote...

Here's the difference - the complaints about Diablo 3 are:

1) Obnoxious DRM which requires access to network servers even for solo play
2) Unstable Servers preventing game play

The complaints about ME3 are:

1) Lousy story conclusion
2) Pre-sales material materially mis-represented content

Diablo 3 problems are mechanical in nature. ME3 problems are content-related.

I think this is the best explanation on why a triple A title like D3 would be below ME3.    Even though blizzard is pretty well-known and reputable.   It really is that simple.

There will be significantly more grievances against a product that the consumers cannot access.   Compared to a product that the consumer can access but were having issues with the quality of the content..

ME3 will be rated much lower if it also ran into the same problems as D3. 

Modifié par Aurica, 22 mai 2012 - 02:00 .

[Remus A]

Prosarian wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

At least we were able to play our single-player game on release day.

+1000

QFT

[EricHVela]

Adamantium93 wrote...

Diablo 3 has a very poor DRM system and the majority of complaints arise from that.

[Averdi]

Different types of games. Story has never been the strong suit of Diablo.

But, at least D3 has replay value for me; I can't see myself touching ME again.

Modifié par Averdi, 22 mai 2012 - 02:12 .

[DarthSliver]

I only think Diablo 3 is lower because of the issues it had when it launched which were more troublesome than ME3 since Blizzard made it where you have to be online to even play it solo.

[Dark_Caduceus]

It's sort of sad because Diablo III is a much more solid, polished game.

Blizzard games have never even focused strongly on story, but at least it doesn't have gaping plot holes riddled throughout the entire narrative.

[Dark_Caduceus]

Averdi wrote...

Different types of games. Story has never been the strong suit of Diablo.

But, at least D3 has replay value for me; I can't see myself touching ME again.

Story was never the strong suit for the Mass Effect trilogy after Mass Effect 1 either; unless you add the obligatory "good story for a videogame" qualifier.

[stysiaq]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Averdi wrote...

Different types of games. Story has never been the strong suit of Diablo.

But, at least D3 has replay value for me; I can't see myself touching ME again.

Story was never the strong suit for the Mass Effect trilogy after Mass Effect 1 either; unless you add the obligatory "good story for a videogame" qualifier.

ME1 story is nothing exceptional as well.

[Sajuro]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Averdi wrote...

Different types of games. Story has never been the strong suit of Diablo.

But, at least D3 has replay value for me; I can't see myself touching ME again.

Story was never the strong suit for the Mass Effect trilogy after Mass Effect 1 either; unless you add the obligatory "good story for a videogame" qualifier.

at least they were engaging and made sense.

[chemiclord]

Long story short; Metacritic is where the hipsters of the gaming community go to feel superior to those "mainstream" gamers.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

ME -- it's about the story.
Diablo -- it's about slaughter and loot. who cares about plot?

[20x6]

ShepnTali wrote...

Waiting for console version and no DRM. LOL @ PC snobs. Not PC gamers. PC elitists. LOL.

The whole game is played server-side.  
If they make a console version it will be exactly like the PC version - just a client socketed into the servers.  If your internet connection goes down or the servers go down, you're just a screwed as a PC player.