3D Camera options/views? What are you even talking about? Diablo 3 is a 3D game that is SUPPOSED to be played in top-down view. That's kind of part of the GENRE.
It's obvious that YOU are the one that know NOTHING about games. So all dungeon crawler games are "SUPPOSED" to be isometric? Dragon Age offers that view PLUS a couple of others and leaves it to the user to decide. You are simply in essence, "It's not a BUG; it's a FEATURE!" That doesn't excuse it, guy. Now if you like it, fine. But it's still out of date for a so-called "AAA" game (whatever the hell that is supposed to be).
Maybe you should try comparing D3 to a game of the SAME genre like Bastion or Torchlight.
Maybe you don't know WTF a genre is. Torchlight isn't a "genre". It's a rip-off/clone of Diablo. The genre is RPG, all of which are ultimately dungeon crawlers at heart. Diablo is simply more crawler/beat'em up than some others that have more strategy or longer story lines. That doesn't mean it's in a completely different genre. That's like saying Shania Twain isn't country because she has more popular songs.
Really, it sounds like you don't know anything about anything. You keep saying I don't know anything about gaming, but I grew up from the beginning of games. I had a Vic-20, C64, Colecovision, Intellivsion, Atari 2600, Amiga 500, Amiga 3000 and a PC and played a lot of games on ALL of them. You misunderstand when I say I'm not a gamer in that I don't spend all my time in 2012 playing games (unlike much of Generation WHY). That doesn't mean I'm not familiar with gaming. You apparently play one or two games and think they're ALL "supposed" to look a certain way.
You're approaching this game like it's a story-driven singleplayer rpg. It's not. It is a multiplayer dungeon crawler with high difficulty modes. It has plenty of replayability, you just choose not to like what it has to offer. That's your prerogative, but it doesn't mean the game is bad.
Dude, I'm familiar with Diablo. I've beaten Diablo II on Hell difficulty with a Necromancer (generally regarded the most difficult game to play). I know how it works for god's sake. But you seem intent on looking for nooks in my argument to insult me rather than simply consider what I have to say.
It has nothing to do with "ripping off." AAA titles are games produced by big name studios that typically are sold at a higher price (kind of like how you pay a PREMIUM to own a Mac which you expect to be a higher quality product).
Being sold at a high price does not automatically mean a game is going to be quality. If you believe that you are
incredibly naive. I paid $80 for a certain N64 Star Wars game called
Shadows of the Empire and it was NOT a high quality game other than the first level.
You can decide not to like the games but D3 IS a AAA title and its price is certainly justified.
Says you. WHAT makes it justified? YOU saying so?
Honestly I don't even know why you are in this thread. You clearly don't like D3 or even the genre of game that D3 is, and you clearly know very little about games. You're either very ignorant or a huge troll.
You speak like a fanboy does. You assume because someone doesn't like something about whatever is being discussed that they don't like ANYTHING about it. If I don't like Apple's policy on "X", I MUST be a freaking TROLL.
That's a total cop-out for someone who simply cannot and will not argue a discussion on its actual merits but rather has to pull out the "troll" card when he doesn't even know WTF a troll is. You make me sick. I played the hell out of Diablo 2, so you telling me that I don't like the genre is a JOKE and proves that when I say you don't know WTF you're talking about, I darn well mean it. I've been on these forums for a long time now. The idea of me being a troll is laughable. I certainly do NOT enjoy talking to people like you.
I was looking forward to Diablo 3, but "renting" a game is a deal breaker at the $60 price point. I want a game I can be assured I can play without having to be connected to the Internet to do so. If they're going to rent games, it should be considerably cheaper and it should be understood the game will one day become unplayable (how long that will be may vary, but it's inevitable at some point).
How am I defending greed? What? lol
You're defending the online-only policy which is ONLY about DRM and assuring their money-making 'auction' feature does well. It has
nothing to do with providing a quality product to the consumer and one that they can enjoy when they want to, not when the servers are running and Internet is available.
I am defending a game that me and over six million other people are enjoying. This has nothing to do with greed.
Yeah, they're completely unrelated.
Blizzard has limited resources. You can't just throw money at a problem and expect it to just solve itself. Do you even realize Diablo 3 required an entirely new team of developers to make?
I don't know what Universe YOU live in, but in the one I live in, decisions are based on priorities and money solves a LOT of problems including hiring more developers. A sequel that is started in 2001 should not take 11 years to complete. They either had it on a very low back burner or they're incompetent. Take your pick. Whether it's on again or off again, they clearly didn't put much effort into a reasonable time frame. 10 years is another generation of gamers born into the world that have no idea WTF Diablo even is. Diablo 2 sure as heck didn't come out over 10 years after Diablo 1. They had higher priorities on games where they can charge a monthly fee (i.e. WoW) because it's the greed that just keeps on charging and this is pretty much a well known fact why Diablo 3 got the shaft in the short term.
It's the same reason games like Ultima single player disappeared. The gaming companies all think there's more money making potential in a game where they charge by the month. I don't got for those kind of games. I don't have enough time per month to justify their costs and I don't like interacting with online players for good reasons.
Also, only that first article mentioned anything about 2001 (with absolutely no source on that information, mind you). The other thing is that
All three mentioned it. You clearly didn't even read them.
"development" can mean a lot of things. If you think it took anywhere near as long as you claim then you're simply naive. That's all there is to it. The
You don't have a clue how long they actually spent on it and making excuses for definitions of "development" is just WEAK. You can't save face at this point with weak excuses. You already blew it big time.
graphical engine isn't "old" it is purposely low-end so that Blizzard can accomodate players with a wide range of hardware. They tend to make up for this by having a very strong team of artists and in-house style.
Yes, that's why it's low-end. They wanted to include ancient hardware. RIIIGGGHT.
It's not a bug! It's a FEATURE! That seems to be your hallmark excuse for everything.
(it's also hilarious that you claim DA:O is your favorite game ever and then go on a rant about D3's graphics. rofl)
What makes DA:O great is not its graphics but the sheer level of gaming interaction, multiple courses of action and a very decent length of game play before repeating itself. Even so, the graphics were quite acceptable on a PC in high-resolution and they are true 3D, not isometric 2D and they were developed in half the time or less than Diablo3. The sequels so far suck by comparison, but at least they came out in a timely fashion, not 10+ years later.
I don't have to look very hard (the posts just below yours) to see I'm not the only one that is disappointed by Blizzard's decision to make this dependent on an Internet connection and clearly they ARE having the lag problems I talked about. I'd probably pay $60 for the game if it had a solid single player offline mode, but without it, I want the price cut at least in half. I simply won't consider the game until it's under $30 or addresses the online-only thing. You can do what you want, but you clearly don't speak for the entire planet (you seem to think so, though).
