5 ms·

Do you not play with friends? Do you not engage in world events? Do you not engage in random skirmishes? Do you not find it fun when you're working on a questio

Do you not play with friends? Do you not engage in world events? Do you not engage in random skirmishes? Do you not find it fun when you're working on a question and it turns out there's someone else working on the same quest and so you roam and fight the mobs they're fighting, too? I've had many, many fun, multiplayer interactions in D4 that have absolutely enhanced my experience playing it. I have many negative things to say about Diablo 4; but, it being multiplayer - even it being massively-ish multiplayer - especially after playing it for a couple weeks, is not one of them.

Kiro 3y ago
Yeah, I was extremely skeptical of the "forced MMO" aspect and almost didn't get the game because of it, but now I think it's one of the best parts of the game. I love how it's not in the way and feels natural.
notacoward 3y ago
This isn't about online/multiplayer being an option. It's about that being mandatory. Today's DDoS brought the game down even for people who had absolutely no interest or intention to do any of the things you mention, at that time. 100% degradation instead of some lower percentage if online had been optional. Unless you want to argue that there are (or should be) no people who play games alone, your response is a bit of a red herring. Phrasing your statements as pseudo-rhetorical questions, as though the "right" answers should be obvious, is even a bit insulting.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Kiro 3y ago
  Would you say the same thing about WoW? Most people play solo but no-no would expect it to work offline. If Diablo 4 would be released as a new title with no expectations I don't think anyone would question the always online aspect. It's a new and integral part of the experience.
  - notacoward 3y ago
    > Would you say the same thing about WoW? No. WoW has always been an MMORPG. Playing "solo" still means you're in the world with other players. That has not been the case with Diablo before. > It's a new and integral part of the experience. New (i.e. different than the rest of the franchise) and integral is an inherently bad combination. New and optional would be fine. If they want to make a completely new game with no expectations, then they shouldn't be reusing a name that necessarily carries expectations. What they've done is close to a bait and switch, and that's why people are pissed off.
    - t-writescode 3y ago
      * Every Final Fantasy for a long time had a different battle system. - single-job characters, a jobs system, materia, guardian forces, the weird tree thing from 10, the clothing system from 10-2, the multi-crystal system from 13. Constant change! * Every Diablo game thus far has had an entirely different skill tree style. Heck, Diablo 2 and Diablo 2 v1.10 had meaningful changes to the skill tree. Diablo 3 is a world different from D2 wrt the skill tree. The skill tree in these games is a *major* part of the game experience and it has been completely rewritten. I haven't played D1 in foreever, but I'm pretty sure it handled all of this very, very differently, too! New and integral is fine.
    - Kiro 3y ago
      > That has not been the case with Diablo before. But it is the case now. You could say the same thing about any change or new feature in D4 but you draw the line at your own subjective opinion of what a true Diablo game is.
      - notacoward 3y ago
        There's nothing subjective about the difference between a game that can run fine offline and a game that becomes unusable when the servers are slow. No engineer would say that. It is perhaps a bit more arguable whether a change in genre is subjective, but I still think the answer is no. There's no comparison between those and something like skill-tree changes which are common, expected, and even somewhat necessary for a series to progress. That's a ridiculous analogy. I get it that some people want to turn Diablo into WoW, but please don't make up insane arguments for your subjective preference.
- BlueTemplar 3y ago
  Also Internet connection issues playing Hardcore that can't be solved by playing offline any more.

Kiro 3y ago

Yeah, I was extremely skeptical of the "forced MMO" aspect and almost didn't get the game because of it, but now I think it's one of the best parts of the game. I love how it's not in the way and feels natural.

notacoward 3y ago

This isn't about online/multiplayer being an option. It's about that being mandatory. Today's DDoS brought the game down even for people who had absolutely no interest or intention to do any of the things you mention, at that time. 100% degradation instead of some lower percentage if online had been optional. Unless you want to argue that there are (or should be) no people who play games alone, your response is a bit of a red herring. Phrasing your statements as pseudo-rhetorical questions, as though the "right" answers should be obvious, is even a bit insulting.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Kiro 3y ago
Would you say the same thing about WoW? Most people play solo but no-no would expect it to work offline. If Diablo 4 would be released as a new title with no expectations I don't think anyone would question the always online aspect. It's a new and integral part of the experience.
- notacoward 3y ago
  > Would you say the same thing about WoW? No. WoW has always been an MMORPG. Playing "solo" still means you're in the world with other players. That has not been the case with Diablo before. > It's a new and integral part of the experience. New (i.e. different than the rest of the franchise) and integral is an inherently bad combination. New and optional would be fine. If they want to make a completely new game with no expectations, then they shouldn't be reusing a name that necessarily carries expectations. What they've done is close to a bait and switch, and that's why people are pissed off.
  - t-writescode 3y ago
    * Every Final Fantasy for a long time had a different battle system. - single-job characters, a jobs system, materia, guardian forces, the weird tree thing from 10, the clothing system from 10-2, the multi-crystal system from 13. Constant change! * Every Diablo game thus far has had an entirely different skill tree style. Heck, Diablo 2 and Diablo 2 v1.10 had meaningful changes to the skill tree. Diablo 3 is a world different from D2 wrt the skill tree. The skill tree in these games is a *major* part of the game experience and it has been completely rewritten. I haven't played D1 in foreever, but I'm pretty sure it handled all of this very, very differently, too! New and integral is fine.
  - Kiro 3y ago
    > That has not been the case with Diablo before. But it is the case now. You could say the same thing about any change or new feature in D4 but you draw the line at your own subjective opinion of what a true Diablo game is.
    - notacoward 3y ago
      There's nothing subjective about the difference between a game that can run fine offline and a game that becomes unusable when the servers are slow. No engineer would say that. It is perhaps a bit more arguable whether a change in genre is subjective, but I still think the answer is no. There's no comparison between those and something like skill-tree changes which are common, expected, and even somewhat necessary for a series to progress. That's a ridiculous analogy. I get it that some people want to turn Diablo into WoW, but please don't make up insane arguments for your subjective preference.
BlueTemplar 3y ago
Also Internet connection issues playing Hardcore that can't be solved by playing offline any more.