4 ms·
It's so sad to see a company throw away its IPs like this. Diablo 1 and 2 are works of art, and they will be remembered as such. I mean D1 & D2 are not even co
by proc0 4y ago
It's so sad to see a company throw away its IPs like this. Diablo 1 and 2 are works of art, and they will be remembered as such.
I mean D1 & D2 are not even comparable to Immortal. It might feel like the same franchise, but Immortal is basically like going to Las Vegas and playing a Diablo slot machine. D1 & D2 were self-consistent worlds, where the player is rewarded for killing enemies, and the rewards scale with difficulty. This is rendered completely meaningless the second you can buy items with money. Yes, this was still a problem back then, but the solution should have been removal of the store and trading, instead of making the store and market in-house.
Not just Blizzard, but also a large part of the game industry, have sneaked in a different product... from selling an experience, to selling tokens and items in their store.
I wouldn't care that much if they had created a new franchise, and named it something different (honestly this includes D3). However, it's the blatant disregard for games as an art form, transforming them into software services with stores. They will still make money, but it's not because they made a video game, but rather a fancy slot machine.
- TomSwirly 4y ago> Diablo 1 and 2 are works of art, [...] > the player is rewarded for killing enemies, and the rewards scale with difficulty. Diablo 1 and 2 were good video games. They weren't intended as works of art, and they aren't. A game where you go around killing increasingly strong enemies isn't really anything new.
- ddtaylor 4y ago> Diablo 1 and 2 were good video games. They weren't intended as works of art, and they aren't I disagree and consider both games to be works of art. Both games pushed the boundaries of cinematic story telling for the ARPG genre. > A game where you go around killing increasingly strong enemies isn't really anything new. A painting of a woman wasn't new in the early 1500s when the Mona Lisa was painted, but I think most would consider it a work of art.
- ASalazarMX 4y agoI feel like you have a point somewhere, but knowing the history of games where you go around killing increasingly strong enemies, like the original Doom, makes me doubt the universality of your statement.
- ddtaylor 4y agoIMO this is another example of a company taking established trust in a franchise and exploiting it for a cash grab. The problem is that while players are upset right now they will forget and when Diablo 4 releases everyone will promptly pull out their wallets. There isn't much risk in companies doing these kinds of things because of consumer apathy. In this specific case it's a "meh" from me because I think Diablo 3 mostly destroyed the franchise for me both in terms of lore and gameplay mechanics. Blizzard has gone on record as saying they aren't competing with Path of Exile in the ARPG market and see the market split into two parts: simple/casual (D3) and complex (PoE) and I prefer the more complex and engaging market. All of the information they have released about Diablo 4 so far fits in line with that thinking and is mostly a re-hashing of the D3 mechanics.
- the_biot 4y ago> IMO this is another example of a company taking established trust in a franchise and exploiting it for a cash grab. It's a franchise. There is no aspect of this which is not a cash grab.
- proc0 4y agoCorrect, although the profit is coming from substantially different places and that influences the end product. It's like the difference between an artist selling a painting, and an artist selling parts of his painting by chopping it up and offering different pieces at different prices. In the latter example you end up with something that is less cohesive and a different experience.
- ASalazarMX 4y ago"Diablo Immortal: The search for more money"