![]() ![]() There are still tons of people playing every day and week, and playing a lot, but eventually they’re going to run out of stuff to do (if they haven’t already). “We recognize that the item hunt is just not enough for a long-term sustainable end-game. The quote has popped up in a lot of places. ![]() Will it get expansions or new game modes or new games on the same platform? My big question is what will Blizzard do with the game they have created? Eventually it will be played out for most people. On the flip side of the “always online” issue, one thing I mentioned in that post (along with a couple of other posts) and on which NOBODY commented, was the sentiment that I sure hope Blizzard has some sort of follow up plan for content, game modes, or something, because while I liked what they delivered on day one, there wasn’t enough there to keep me interested in the long term. Unless they died to lag in hardcore mode. My opinion, naturally, but I suspect that people who liked the game play would agree. So the negative aspects of always online (lag, downtime) were comparable in my eyes to things people have put up with in the past, while the positive aspect (really easy to play with your friends) seemed a plus. Players have proven time and again that we will put up with horrible technical issues and oppressive DRM for good game play. The auto-save every turn function in Civ II and beyond was put in because the original Civ crashed so damn often it was practically heart breaking. ![]() And the post-release period of most versions of Civilization are prime examples of people putting up with often horrible technical and environmental issues to get to game play they desire. The first year of World of Warcraft is a good example. But the history of online gaming shows that will put up with a lot of crap for good game play. Yes, it is a deal killer for some people. The thing is, to my mind, and in my experience, always online is a subordinate issue when it comes to the big picture. The prime criticism I received about that post was that I did not spend much time on the always online aspect of Diablo III. Those details were minor to some and major to others, but they were not worlds apart. It was a post of opportunity, as I had played neither game before that week and so I was able to have a fresh look at the pair of them, side by side.Īnd the conclusion to my post was that, for game play, Diablo III and Torchlight II were close enough that what really separated them was a matter of details. I wrote a post a while back comparing the game play, and other items important to me in a Diablo style game, between Diablo III, which had just launched a couple of days before, and Torchlight II, which happened to be having a beta weekend at the same time. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |