breton

@NyxFe: Oh how naive you are to think that there aren't any minorities that show hostility towards the majority. And you're hardly outside of them with what seems to be your stereotype that straight white males, or cis, can never be offended by anything ever in the world and they have no problem and everything goes their way.

@Animasta said:

@Canteu: @breton: dude how else do you want me to call them, normal? because THAT's offensive to trans people. cis literally means the opposite of trans and that is literally the dictionary definition of someone who is not trans.

I don't know, or care really. Maybe I should stop being offended so we can have actual discourse on the subject, but that's an unfortunate impossibility. I'm offended and you can't ask me to put away my emotions for certain scenarios.

@Animasta said:

also cis is not offensive guys, it's the opposite of trans which is also not offensive

Uhh... don't tell me not to be offended? No, really, it's offensive to me. I've heard its use one too many times in a derogatory fashion aimed towards heterosexual men and women. Might as well tell black people not be be offended by the use of the word nigger because all it really means is that they have a different skin pigmentation. No, that's not how it works.

@MindOST said:

"I have no idea what context is so I'm gonna pretend to be offended by a word in an attempt to make a point about how no one should ever be offended by anything ever."

I think it was more about pointing out the inconsistency of arguing for tolerance and kindness while unwittingly using a bigoted vocabulary to do so. There was no context to absolve the use of the term, unlike the "cracker, honky? breeder, het scum? prick?" line which were merely examples. In fact, the exclusion of cis from that list is evidence that he finds its use completely appropriate when it's no less offensive than any other gender issue terminology. Only difference being that people of such nature are secure with their sexual orientation.

@Animasta said:

cis

Please don't use this term to describe us.

@GabrielNox said:

Isn't that exactly what you got? You basically paid 60$ for Diablo 2.1 which you can only play when Blizzard feels like it. I'm not saying it's a bad thing but for some reason people ware expecting a revolution. Why? The revolution already happened several years ago when top down hack'n'slash rpg's ware replaced with third person action rpg's. With Diablo III you're getting nostalgia, not a revolution.

In this specific instance, as was the argument of Brodehouse, who I quoted, we are strictly referring to the offline and online functionality. In that regard, no, it's not what people got. Diablo 2 had single player, LAN, open battle.net, and closed battle.net. They cut everything to make it an entirely online, regulated, experience. And when you say "which you can play only when Blizzard feels like it" I feel like you're taking the piss out of me by defending it.

@Brodehouse said:

But that's not what Diablo 3 is. It's really easy to get mad if you're judging a game by what it isn't instead of what it is. All "this game should be" and "in my mind, Diablo is" are irrelevant. There's no race car gameplay, and it's a really terrible 2D fighter, especially when compared with Street Fighter.

Comparing a game to things of an entirely separate genre or even games of the same genre is a completely different situation from holding up a sequel to it's predecessors and expecting a better or at least same experience and functionality.

Hardly seems unwarranted to me. If all one can actually play of the game is a log in screen and banner customization, it's hardly deserving of a high score. Many games are criticized and given a lower score because of a broken multiplayer component with connection issues, latency, etc.. But they are able to retain favor on the merit of a functioning single player campaign. Diablo 3 can't even offer that, so why is it excused from criticism where others have been punished? People physically can't play the game. There's no game to be played. It's a log in screen. That deserves 10/10?

A company that had Blizzard North, and its creative team, for the production of Diablo 1 and 2.

@AhmadMetallic said:

Wow I can't believe you guys. Not only does the first game play a huge role in the story (naturally) and gets you acquainted with Triss, Dandelion, Zoltan and the late king (which makes his death in 2 more hard-hitting), but it also introduces you to the magic signs, alchemy, swords and enemy types that carry over to the sequel. Introduces you to the various environments that help you create a background for jumping into 2.
Importing the beaten save also gives you the Raven Armor, Aerondight sword and a bunch of money from the get go...

Yes, play the first game if you have a PC that can run it because otherwise you'll start Witcher 2 with a bunch of strangers and a king you've never seen before that dies 5 minutes in.

It's not spoilers, but goes into details that someone who hasn't played doesn't need to know:

What someone who hasn't played should know:

Yeah, some characters from the first appear in the second. A knowledge of the world from playing the first is a boon to playing the second. But there's absolutely no continuity from the plot of the first game to the plot of the second. From your logic even someone who has played the first game isn't equipped to play TW2. There's a lot of shit TW2 draws up from the established fiction of the books and there's barely, if any, foundation of that material found in TW1. And when only two books have been translated into English (I've read The Last Wish), with one already out of chronological order, fuck that shit. And the gameplay mechanics argument is silly. There's a tutorial section that no matter how poorly implemented it was teaches a player the mechanics.

It's perfectly acceptable to play this game without playing the first. Would I encourage it? No. Do you need to play TW1 to get the MOST out of TW2. Yes. But the main narrative is wholly separate.