I still don't get it though. Why are we comparing an MMO (massive multiplayer online) to the single player of diablo 3? How does this comparison mean both should have always online DRM?
All I'm saying is that they have a reason to keep it persistently online, much like an MMO has a reason to not let you play offline. I also think that MMOs are mislabeled a lot of the time. I wouldn't say that Guild Wars is an MMO, nor would I say The Old Republic really is either. It's not massive multiplayer when most of the world instances have as many people as a game of Battlefield 3.
I don't know anything, but it seems like this discussion can't really continue until everyone agrees on whether or not Diablo III is a multiplayer game, and it doesn't seem like people agree on that yet.
I don't know anything, but it seems like this discussion can't really continue until everyone agrees on whether or not Diablo III is a multiplayer game, and it doesn't seem like people agree on that yet.
It can be played single player with no interaction with other people. Despite that, it requires one to be online.
I don't know anything, but it seems like this discussion can't really continue until everyone agrees on whether or not Diablo III is a multiplayer game, and it doesn't seem like people agree on that yet.
It's definitely a multiplayer game, a co-op one. The same way that Battletoads or Rivery City Ransom are. It's co-op, but it is also possible to hurt the other players. It is therefore also possible to compete with the other players to see who can kill the other player first.
However, Blizzard openly admits, Diablo is not a game meant for competition.
... And though players may compete in the game's PvP mode or race each other to the most powerful gear, Pardo says Diablo 3 is not a game meant for competition. ...
Even if you try to make Diablo into a competitive game, it is a stupid one. Winning and losing when fighting another player comes down to each players damage per second, armor, hp, and speed at using potions and such. You can calculate who the winner will be without actually having the fight. Just because you can force it to be competitive doesn't mean that doing so is not silly and pointless.
Just because you've never participated in high level RPG PvP that involves actual sport-like skills does not mean that it doesn't exist and is not interesting. And there is competition that involves more than "killing the other players." Being the first to make it through Hell difficulty in Hardcore mode will actually take quite a bit of skill. It's more comparable to earning a Guiness Record than an Olympic Medal, but it's still an interesting thing to quite a few people.
Blizzards intent (which is more complex than you're admitting here) is rather irrelevant as well. I can intend for a game to be a cooperative one, but in actuality the players might enjoy the competition between each other more than the cooperation.
And your understanding of RPG PvP is laughable here. Sure, the numbers matter quite a bit. But they also matter in Starcraft. And the worst thing about RPG PvP is when the game really does boil down to skill-less number mechanics and such. But the existence of that problem does not void the entire genre inherently. Possibly in practice, but not inherently.
And as for the comment above that "This game is not an MMORPG", can we all simply agree that momorpagas are an ill-defined thing then? This game is "Massive Multiplayer" and "Online" and a "Role Playing Game", but it is not a persistent inclusive universe game like we often think of the genre. And there's a slight problem that an individual instance of a game of Diablo III is itself not massive, possibly not even multiplayer, and only forcibly online. But there is a game that surrounds and comprises that game that includes the in-game auction house and other mechanics that are more broad and such.
And maybe it's not a role-playing game either for the vast vast majority of people for the classical definition of that but... eh... we know these problems.
Just because you've never participated in high level RPG PvP that involves actual sport-like skills does not mean that it doesn't exist and is not interesting. And there is competition that involves more than "killing the other players." Being the first to make it through Hell difficulty in Hardcore mode will actually take quite a bit of skill. It's more comparable to earning a Guiness Record than an Olympic Medal, but it's still an interesting thing to quite a few people.
Blizzards intent (which is more complex than you're admitting here) is rather irrelevant as well. I can intend for a game to be a cooperative one, but in actuality the players might enjoy the competition between each other more than the cooperation.
And your understanding of RPG PvP is laughable here. Sure, the numbers matter quite a bit. But they also matter in Starcraft. And the worst thing about RPG PvP is when the game really does boil down to skill-less number mechanics and such. But the existence of that problem does not void the entire genre inherently. Possibly in practice, but not inherently.
And as for the comment above that "This game is not an MMORPG", can we all simply agree that momorpagas are an ill-defined thing then? This game is "Massive Multiplayer" and "Online" and a "Role Playing Game", but it is not a persistent inclusive universe game like we often think of the genre. And there's a slight problem that an individual instance of a game of Diablo III is itself not massive, possibly not even multiplayer, and only forcibly online. But there is a game that surrounds and comprises that game that includes the in-game auction house and other mechanics that are more broad and such.
And maybe it's not a role-playing game either for the vast vast majority of people for the classical definition of that but... eh... we know these problems.
Within this context, since the first time upgrading your zergling carapace allowed them to survive one additional zealot attack. My level 2 armor zerglings are vastly superior against level 0 attack zealots.
If you just mean that Diablo has levels... generally nobody considers PvP between a high level and a low level sporting. That's a Red herring. Competition involves the characters being at approximately the same level (both the actual thing that a level is, and all relevant equipment) or that the skill or handicap offsets the difference (my naked char vs. your fully geared char most likely).
I think we've discussed many times the difference between statefulness carrying across games compared to being contained within a single instance of a game.
In D2 at least, some of the items were rare enough that an individual player may never see them drop. And they might be critical to a build. If there was a working economy, you could trade things you don't need for things you want. In D2, that wasn't realistic because the "haves" had a billion everything, and the "have-nots" had nothing of relative value to trade to them.
Then just cheat the same way and get the item you want. The very idea of an economy in a primarily single-player or localized multiplayer game is ludicrous.
Actually, if you want an interesting and complex economy, an element of localization is an essential aspect. For example, in EVE Online a major part of what makes the economy complex is the way it's spread over numerous star systems. Spreading an economy over numerous overlapping small communities can achieve a similar effect.
I think we've discussed many times the difference between statefulness carrying across games compared to being contained within a single instance of a game.
Certainly. But you miss the point that rarely does anyone PvP across non-equivalent levels and considers it an interesting and exciting game. Well, maybe David vs. Goliath when David wins.
Once everyone has access to (effectively) all the gear and options, that's when things get interesting. Just because there's a lot of bullshit to get to that point isn't necessarily relevant. Once you're at end-game, you're at end-game. The barrier to entry sucks, and is the lamest part of the game, but it is absolutely not insurmountable.
Similarly, in the meta-game of Starcraft, he who has spent more time has a technical advantage. But that isn't what makes or breaks the interest of the game. And in truth, each individual arena match is not entirely different from each individual Starcraft match.
Actually, if you want an interesting and complex economy, an element of localization is an essential aspect. For example, in EVE Online a major part of what makes the economy complex is the way it's spread over numerous star systems. Spreading an economy over numerous overlapping small communities can achieve a similar effect.
That is definitely part of what's interesting about it. Creating a cost to move goods is one of my favorite little mechanics of Eve and similar games. Trade (and piracy) motivate so many things just by being allowed to exist.
Two guys have the exact same class, exact same level, exact same equipment, exact same stats and abilities. They fight. What determines who wins? Their damage per second and healing per second are identical. Who clicked first? Who clicks faster?
Generally, he who clicks better and makes superior use of his character, equipment, timing, positioning, and terrain.
In the case that they are both played by equal players, and they both pick the exact same strategy, he who clicks faster/he who has better latency. Which sucks. But that's no different than who clicks heads faster in counter-strike at that point. Ideally, reaching that level of exact play is nearly impossible.
Better use? Terrain? I don't remember getting +1 defense from standing on mountains in Diablo. Timing? You click as fast as possible! Attack speed is based on your attack speed stat!
Clicking heads in Counter-Strike is completely different. It's incredibly difficult to click on a small thing that is moving very fast in a very short amount of time. Anyone who can use a mouse can click on a dude in Diablo.
If you tried to kill a high end player, as any high level PvP character, by just clicking on them... you would be a laughable failure. That you don't realize shows that you really have no idea what you're talking about. Positioning and terrain are incredibly important in PvP. Did you "duel" people just by running at them and entering a slugfest? You would lose handily to anyone and everyone that actually knew what they were doing.
And realize, of course, that we havn't even seen D3 PvP yet. It could be terrible. Or Awesome. There's no telling yet.
Clicking heads in Counter-Strike is completely different. It's incredibly difficult to click on a small thing that is moving very fast in a very short amount of time. Anyone who can use a mouse can click on a dude in Diablo.
But the example here was if everything, player skill, positioning, equipment, map layout, etc. was the same. Essentially, both people managed to get the crosshair on each others heads at exactly the same time, in the same way. At that point, yes... it's he who clicks faster/has better latency. But... that's unrealistic so you actually understand the point... but are incapable of seeing it in the context.
How many times do we have to explain the same concepts over and over again before people actually understand them? Read any thread in this forum about any other non-skill game.
How many times do we have to explain the same concepts over and over again before people actually understand them? Read any thread in this forum about any other non-skill game*.
How many times do we have to explain the same concepts over and over again before people actually understand them? Read any thread in this forum about any other non-skill game*.
* as defined by Rym and/or Apreche math and science.
Sorry let me rephrase that, if people consider Leauge of Legends a competitive game then there can be PvP in Diablo. I'm not trying to say there would be any skill involved.
If you are saying there is no skill involved in high level Diablo II or World of Warcraft duels, you're still just plain wrong. Again. I still remember the day I completely shut-down a gank attempt by a level 80 as a twinked 60 on a PvP server. There was quite clearly a "skill gap" involved for that to happen. And I've played with some of the best, and I don't even qualify as in their league.
You can't see a thing because you don't want to see a thing. Falling back on "We told you there's no skill, therefore there is no skill." is just frustrating and lame.
How many times do we have to explain the same concepts over and over again before people actually understand them? Read any thread in this forum about any other non-skill game*.
* as defined by Rym and/or Apreche math and science.
Just repeating something endlessly doesn't make it right. Also point a post where you have posted some math or science relevant to this topic (skill vs no-skill games). Because I don't remember seeing any. Empty claims yes, but nothing real.
From now I declare the burden of proof that any Diablo is a game of skill is on you guys. You prove to me that it is a game of skill. What skills does the game test, how does it test those skills, to what degree, and what percentage of the victory condition is attributed to each skill test?
From now I declare the burden of proof that any Diablo is a game of skill is on you guys. You prove to me that it is a game of skill. What skills does the game test, how does it test those skills, to what degree, and what percentage of the victory condition is attributed to each skill test?
For that I would have to aquire and play the game and I don't have any interest to do so. Also you are the one who claimed to have the math and science, so shouldn't you first give that out?
Comments
However, Blizzard openly admits, Diablo is not a game meant for competition. http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/01/diablo-3-to-feature-player-to-player-real-money-auction-house-fo/
Even if you try to make Diablo into a competitive game, it is a stupid one. Winning and losing when fighting another player comes down to each players damage per second, armor, hp, and speed at using potions and such. You can calculate who the winner will be without actually having the fight. Just because you can force it to be competitive doesn't mean that doing so is not silly and pointless.
Blizzards intent (which is more complex than you're admitting here) is rather irrelevant as well. I can intend for a game to be a cooperative one, but in actuality the players might enjoy the competition between each other more than the cooperation.
And your understanding of RPG PvP is laughable here. Sure, the numbers matter quite a bit. But they also matter in Starcraft. And the worst thing about RPG PvP is when the game really does boil down to skill-less number mechanics and such. But the existence of that problem does not void the entire genre inherently. Possibly in practice, but not inherently.
And as for the comment above that "This game is not an MMORPG", can we all simply agree that momorpagas are an ill-defined thing then? This game is "Massive Multiplayer" and "Online" and a "Role Playing Game", but it is not a persistent inclusive universe game like we often think of the genre. And there's a slight problem that an individual instance of a game of Diablo III is itself not massive, possibly not even multiplayer, and only forcibly online. But there is a game that surrounds and comprises that game that includes the in-game auction house and other mechanics that are more broad and such.
And maybe it's not a role-playing game either for the vast vast majority of people for the classical definition of that but... eh... we know these problems.
Within this context, since the first time upgrading your zergling carapace allowed them to survive one additional zealot attack. My level 2 armor zerglings are vastly superior against level 0 attack zealots.
If you just mean that Diablo has levels... generally nobody considers PvP between a high level and a low level sporting. That's a Red herring. Competition involves the characters being at approximately the same level (both the actual thing that a level is, and all relevant equipment) or that the skill or handicap offsets the difference (my naked char vs. your fully geared char most likely).
For example, in EVE Online a major part of what makes the economy complex is the way it's spread over numerous star systems.
Spreading an economy over numerous overlapping small communities can achieve a similar effect.
Once everyone has access to (effectively) all the gear and options, that's when things get interesting. Just because there's a lot of bullshit to get to that point isn't necessarily relevant. Once you're at end-game, you're at end-game. The barrier to entry sucks, and is the lamest part of the game, but it is absolutely not insurmountable.
Similarly, in the meta-game of Starcraft, he who has spent more time has a technical advantage. But that isn't what makes or breaks the interest of the game. And in truth, each individual arena match is not entirely different from each individual Starcraft match.
In the case that they are both played by equal players, and they both pick the exact same strategy, he who clicks faster/he who has better latency. Which sucks. But that's no different than who clicks heads faster in counter-strike at that point. Ideally, reaching that level of exact play is nearly impossible.
Clicking heads in Counter-Strike is completely different. It's incredibly difficult to click on a small thing that is moving very fast in a very short amount of time. Anyone who can use a mouse can click on a dude in Diablo.
If you tried to kill a high end player, as any high level PvP character, by just clicking on them... you would be a laughable failure. That you don't realize shows that you really have no idea what you're talking about. Positioning and terrain are incredibly important in PvP. Did you "duel" people just by running at them and entering a slugfest? You would lose handily to anyone and everyone that actually knew what they were doing.
And realize, of course, that we havn't even seen D3 PvP yet. It could be terrible. Or Awesome. There's no telling yet.
You can't see a thing because you don't want to see a thing. Falling back on "We told you there's no skill, therefore there is no skill." is just frustrating and lame.