I don't get multi-platform negativity

General Discussion
Prev 1 14 15 16 30 Next
So funny watching people argue that D3 was dumbed down for consoles. What's wrong with having only 6 skills usable at a time? Would you prefer how they do it in WoW with 4 extra skill bars? How about the right/left clicking with D2? Then there is the argument that we were restricted to only 4 player co-op because consoles can only use 4 controllers. Tell me, how many players would you like to have all at once? To me, D3 areas are much smaller than the random ones in D2, not to mention a fraction of the monster density, so having any more than 4 people in the same area would be far too much; also not to mention the extra load it would put on the already strained servers .

Next, who the hell what to click through skill/attribute points. All that would happen, is that someone would find the optimal way to use them, and then everyone would do the same. It would only add unneeded complexity to the game for the sake of being complex.

Then there's myriad of other complaints about having achievements, passive skills, no custom lobbies, etc. Guess what, most of these "features" are in WoW, so of course they would be brought over to D3. So stop with the tinfoilhat stuff everytime Blizzard announces something. If you don't like the game, stop playing, and if you like it, you would most likely like it on a console too. It really is that simple.
Im not saying dont have an opinion on the game . What I am saying is why not after voicing that opinion just leave it at that ? Dont play the game and leave it be .
I'm with the OP on this one, I have no problem with D3 being ported to a console. To say that it affected their decisions when they were making the game, so what? Console games are usually way more fun (IMHO) than PC games anyway. Besides, consoles have gotten to the point where you could pretty much have every button that you would ever need, and even if you needed more, you could just hook a keyboard up.
02/22/2013 03:02 AMPosted by Japhasca
No, it doesn't. Not at all. the only difference would be control mechanisms, and D3 was clearly designed for PC controls (keyboard + mouse) so I don't see ANY choices designed for console.


Are you a troll, or just a moron, OP?

  • Four Player Max: Terrible idea, ruining the game
  • No PVP in at launch: We're wasting time figuring out how to make this game suck but run on consoles
  • No attribute system: Do I even have to say anything?
  • No decent skill tree: Ok, I'm pretty sure it's not even Diablo any more
  • Auction House: How to make profits from PC and console gamers. Auction house FTL.
  • No Replayability: Use the Auction House, win, get in your 60-100 hours, and GTFO. Typical of console games, but not what Diablo players want. You wanted to make a second Barbarian that does throwing knives instead of tanky? LOL no need, just buy more gearz


Not to mention, the game is one of the worse received games by the gaming community for Blizzard. Top that off with the fact that instead of making positive decisions about enhancements to the game to try and amend the situation (better item diversity and build diversity, a reason to make alts, better content, random dungeons, no more design around the AH system), and you're basically throwing a cherry on top of the $*&! shake. And then you come and ask why there is multi-platform negativity? !@#$ you.
the only bad side i'm seeing is the random selection of public game (I prefer the style of D2 wherein it have a lobby). Hope mods change this in the future.
02/24/2013 11:13 AMPosted by Petyr
Dragon Age, whether you like it or not (and it's pretty apparent that you don't like it), was a very well-received RPG. Was it as good as Baldur's Gate? Probably not. But being that Baldur's Gate and it's sequel are both considered pantheon games, that's not exactly a fair comparison.

By who? Game reviews? I think Dragon Age was not more then a mediocre experience for most RPG fans. and that is the people I am talking about. Dragon Age was a game directed at the masses. It might have been suficient in that part which I dont even dispute. But when it comes to RPGs it was only "light". With the story, the NPCs and the world itself. Cliche fantasy and quests at best, mediocre content at worst. But I give you that, it was not an bad game. Definitely not. As far as action RPGs goes.

It marked the shift from BIoware as serious game developer to a slave of EA.


My point is that there have been very good multi-platform games that have not been compromised by being on consoles. When multi-platform games are below par, there's more going on than just a PC game being ported onto consoles.

It's almost like people are arguing that these companies can't make sub-par games, they're just constrained by consoles. With or without consoles, games like Dragon Age 2 and Diablo 3 just weren't going to be very good games.

Thats true I completely agree with you here, there are great games that worked on both platforms. But those are not the norm to say that. Usually when a game is either ported to the PC or from the PC to the console something gets lost. Take Metal Gear Solid 2, when they ported that to the PC ... what a trainwreck. Awesome game! No doubt. But someone forgot that the PC has an keyboard. The controler I had was not working correctly and I had no chance in that game to set the keys on the keyboard like I wanted. The mouse was not even supported - which I saw as far as the combat goes as positive point because it made the game more a challange so I guess no mouse support was actually on purpose, but that you cant really chose the keys on your keyboard ...

What I mean with the console is more the mindset. The Console is still seen more as an family friendly platform while the PC for the nerds, even if that is not the reality, but that is how the marketing goes. And for some reason game developers at least of the big companies believe that their consumers are not inteligent enough to get anything that is more complicated then CoD, in terms of story and gameplay.
here's a reason

they will prioritize the console version

one of the first things i thought about diablo 3, being a long time guild wars 1 player, was "why can't i adjust my camera angle with my scroll wheel?"

they announced they're having an "awesome dynamic camera perspective" for playstation diablo 3 gamers

that's already one thing they're going to have that we're not

6/10 if troll thread

anyone who thinks that the ongoing development of the PC version won't suffer because of the console release isn't living in the real world

JUST LIKE WITH CALL OF DUTY, the pc community makes their game a success and activision turns their back on them in pursuit of the more profit-yielding "CASUAL GAMING" console market
02/22/2013 03:02 AMPosted by Japhasca
It really makes you wonder what Diablo 3 COULD have been, if they weren't planning on porting this game to consoles, doesn't it?


No, it doesn't. Not at all. the only difference would be control mechanisms, and D3 was clearly designed for PC controls (keyboard + mouse) so I don't see ANY choices designed for console.


Did you put any thought into that statement before posting?
*Assuming 360 controller button names*

The two triggers and bumpers at the tips of your fingeres would be good for the four skills your character can use.

Left stick would control the X and Y axis of movement, while pushing the right stick in a direction would cause you to "lock on" to an enemy to use your skills. Multiple pushes in the same direction targets monsters farther back if they are in a pack.

A could be used to initiate basic melee (or ranged, depending on the char).

X could be used to auto target an elite monster on the field. Multiple pushes could cycle elites. B would auto target and cycle between non elites.

Y would be the interaction button, from picking up items to talking to NPCs.

Pushing Up on the D-pad un-auto targets all monsters, for quick escapes. Pushing Down on the D-pad uses a health potion.

Start pauses the game (Obviously)

Select brings up your inventory.

This leaves 4 un-used buttons on the controller. The left and right D-pad, as well as the L-3 and R-3 (Clicking the left or right thumbsticks into the controller respectively.)
These are supremely basic controls that i crapped out in about 2 mins.

I'm NOT saying I support a console based D3, as i do believe it is to blame for some of the dumbed down portions of D3. I AM saying, that I could see it being done. With some sacrifices obviously, but done nonetheless.
Go watch TGS Podcast 5 and you will understand why ppl are angry for the Diablo 3 interface and initial consoly looks it has - at 01:08:00h you can see Jesse Cox talks about the huge change in the UI.
My problem isn't with the PS3/4. My largest problem is how bad the security is for the playstation network itself. There are tons of hackers and loopholes on the playstation network. Heck the entire network got shutdown for a solid month a year or so ago.

Personally had they ported it to Xbox live, I think I would have been fine with it.

(fyi I own both platforms as well as the Wii.)
Posted by Japhasca
No, it doesn't. Not at all. the only difference would be control mechanisms, and D3 was clearly designed for PC controls (keyboard + mouse) so I don't see ANY choices designed for console.

Are you a troll, or just a moron, OP?

Four Player Max: Terrible idea, ruining the game
No PVP in at launch: We're wasting time figuring out how to make this game suck but run on consoles
No attribute system: Do I even have to say anything?
No decent skill tree: Ok, I'm pretty sure it's not even Diablo any more
Auction House: How to make profits from PC and console gamers. Auction house FTL.
No Replayability: Use the Auction House, win, get in your 60-100 hours, and GTFO. Typical of console games, but not what Diablo players want. You wanted to make a second Barbarian that does throwing knives instead of tanky? LOL no need, just buy more gearz


Well, as long as you've decided that we're going to get into name calling, you're the moron. Nothing AT ALL that you've mentioned has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with a CONSOLE SYSTEM.

I never said that D3 wasn't in some sense a DUMBED DOWN game, mainly in compared to what we were told we were going to get, but not a single one of the things you mentioned has anything to do with a consoles.

Plenty of console games have more than 4 players.
No PVP at Launch--so what? Plenty of consoles games have PVP at launch.
Attribute System/Skill System-Plenty of consoles games have systems like this. Their exclusion from D3 again has nothing to do with console design.
Auction house-Microtransactions have been around for years for free-to-play games that require server access. Servers cost money to maintain.
No replayability-This has no bearing whatsoever on what platform the game is on. This, and its opposite, can be said about some console and PC games.

You are an amazing example of a blithering idiot.
Japhasca

Starcraft was available on N64.
Diablo was available on PS1.

Both were shadows of their PC selves.


Problem is that.

Starcraft and Diablo 1 have been porteted from PC to consoles. Diablo 3 is ported from consoles to PC.


Thanks for taking my comment out of context. You have a bright future ahead of yourself in the media.
02/24/2013 10:25 PMPosted by Japhasca
No PVP at Launch--so what? Plenty of consoles games have PVP at launch.

I don't care how many console games have PvP at launch. It is my belief that Blizzard wasted time trying to design the game around both PC and console that it didn't even get done and they released it anyways.

02/24/2013 10:25 PMPosted by Japhasca
Attribute System/Skill System-Plenty of consoles games have systems like this

They may, but Diablo 1/2 systems don't appeal to a lot of casual gamers. They changed the core of what made Diablo great to appease average gamers, and I do blame this on the goal of having a console friendly version of this game.

02/24/2013 10:25 PMPosted by Japhasca
Auction house-Microtransactions have been around for years for free-to-play games that require server access. Servers cost money to maintain.

Free 2 play games, yes. I'm pretty sure I paid 100$ for Diablo 3. Also, why didn't Diablo 2 need an Auction House? The servers still run fine to this day. StarCraft 1 or 2? Nope. Blizzard used to pay for servers by game sales (including xpac sales). I'm not saying Auction House is entirely bad either - I'm saying that Blizzard is designing too many mechanics in the game around it's existence, has never needed a recurring revenue before, and I blame execs for this. It also means they have more sources of income if they go to console, making it higher priority to leave and support the AH than to make a better quality game.

02/24/2013 10:25 PMPosted by Japhasca
No replayability-This has no bearing whatsoever on what platform the game is on.

Some what true - but if you check the past eight or so months, most players assumed that the game itself was dumbed down to appease average console gamers. The dumbing down of the game resulted in no replayability. Low and behold, they were proved correct just days ago, and you expect there to be no negativity?
I don't care how many console games have PvP at launch. It is my belief that Blizzard wasted time trying to design the game around both PC and console that it didn't even get done and they released it anyways.


Belief isn't fact. It's okay to have an opinion, but don't expect me or anyone else to share it.

They may, but Diablo 1/2 systems don't appeal to a lot of casual gamers. They changed the core of what made Diablo great to appease average gamers, and I do blame this on the goal of having a console friendly version of this game.


You're assuming that console gamers are casual gamers. Some are, sure, but so are some PC gamers. I shouldn't have to tell you how fundamentally wrong this argument is.

Free 2 play games, yes. I'm pretty sure I paid 100$ for Diablo 3. Also, why didn't Diablo 2 need an Auction House? The servers still run fine to this day. StarCraft 1 or 2? Nope. Blizzard used to pay for servers by game sales (including xpac sales). I'm not saying Auction House is entirely bad either - I'm saying that Blizzard is designing too many mechanics in the game around it's existence, has never needed a recurring revenue before, and I blame execs for this. It also means they have more sources of income if they go to console, making it higher priority to leave and support the AH than to make a better quality game.


I said free to play, not free to get. Guild Wars 2 costs money to buy, but is free to play despite it running on servers. It employs Microtransactions. Some persistent server games don't cost anything--like Maple Story or the current version of DDO. They rely ENTIRELY on micortransactions to generate profit/cover costs.

Do I think the AH-centric method of itemization is bad? ABSO-FRIKKIN-LUTELY. It's pathetic, is what it is. However, look at the difference in server needs of D2 vs. D3. D2 could be played via lan or P2P internet and server needs were minimal. D3 needs multiple servers running at a consistently high capacity. This is a cost that needs to be covered, and I'm fine with that. I don't think that it should have been DESIGNED that way, but since it was, microtransactions are reasonable.

Some what true - but if you check the past eight or so months, most players assumed that the game itself was dumbed down to appease average console gamers. The dumbing down of the game resulted in no replayability. Low and behold, they were proved correct just days ago, and you expect there to be no negativity?


I don't expect there to be a lack of negativity, I just think it's stupid and unfounded.

D3 COULD play better and LOOK way better on 360 and PS3, which are years old. It really does not have high requirements. With the next gen of consoles already beginning, it's not smart to assume these aspects of the game were dumbed down since the current gen can handle much higher specs.

The only other arguments have to do with control setup, which I call BS on--it's simply easier to control 6 abilities in real time than 8, 9, 10, or more--and people making assumptions that console players are stupid and require simple games. That is just snobbish, ignorant, and pathetic.

I'm not in any way saying that D3 is a perfect game. It IS a shadow of what it could have been, but this doesn't make it dumbed down for some secret conspiracy; it just makes it DUMB.
If the game was created solely for the PC and then changed to work on a console. There's no problem. When the game lacks many things just so that it can be ported over to console. That's a problem.
This game is very simplistic compared to its predecessor. Rather than 8 people in one game they moved it to 4 (console gaming) the amount of spells you can use is at a set number rather than having tons that you could scroll through (console gaming). No ist of possible games to join, just a button to push that automatically puts you in a game (console gaming). Those are a few huge ones off the top of my head that can't be refuted. There was no reason to take an ARPG that has 5 different possible characters (whose predecessor allowed for 8 people in one game) and make it so you can only have 4 people. It just doesn't make sense.
yeah im done with diablo 3 and any possible expansions. biggest mistake ive ever made in buying a game.
02/25/2013 12:03 AMPosted by Mathew
yeah im done with diablo 3 and any possible expansions. biggest mistake ive ever made in buying a game.


My biggest mistake was spending $180 on Borderlands 2. It's a fantastic game, but the constant threat of losing persistent bonuses and customization options, and crippling freezes which can corrupt save files makes it a piece of garbageware.
I honestly do not believe that making D3 a cross platform game would "dumb it down" in anyway, D2 would have worked fine on the consoles of time. Maybe the graphics will be toned down a little but other then that, there would be no difference. Even if the developers had in mind to bring D3 out on the PS, why not do it a year a go when the game came out?

if anything this just sounds like another good old episode of pc fan boys crying about "their" games being given to the console gamers.
People are upset and blaming the consoles because the devs told us the game was "streamlined" to be more fun when actually it was "gentrified" to be more like the same old crap we see over and over again.. all that was special about the previous two games was wiped from the table as it was probably considered too risky..

console games have to have a much bigger audience from the get go to be profitable because microsoft and sony get their share from developers as well as publishers so games are typically more safe and gentrified to address a known audience..

D3 REEKS of this "streamlining" ... its a pungent, stagnant lingering odour that festers through every element of the game.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum