djaoni

@JoeyRavn said:

What's truly sad is how ungrateful the PC community can be. We can be amazing, but also a bunch of assholes when we want it. Durante's work is amazing, no matter how you look at it, and yet people complain about it.

Honestly, I just don't know what to think about PC gamers anymore.

Show all these people complaining about Durante's fix besides the shitty troll(s) in the comments here.

Just go read the thread on NeoGAF and see how ungrateful people are. Lots of people even donated to him..

How about you stop using platforms that do not cater whatsoever to small indie companies, Phil? Yeah... Do that.

I hope one day we'll see articles like this concerning Activision and EA.

Ahh, what a glorious day that would be.

The amazing characters include generic bulky man with raspy voice, generic bulky man with deep voice and the completely original manly woman making jokes about dicks.

There are no recent or upcoming stealth games.

Hilarious that people think the AC games are anything but action games. Soon people will say that Mass Effect 3 is a RPG and Dead Space 2 is survival horror.

Too bad.

I didn't know Telltale were ruining King's Quest until just now.. That's disappointing.

@ck1nd said:

I'll give you credit for a good post. However, it's easy to see the rose colored glasses of nostalgia have been placed over your eyes. I've played these games you speak of, and while they were a great part of my childhood, I can't say that anymore. If you were to throw one of those games in front of me now, I would become frustrated and move onto something else. The idea behind punishing a player simply to make something more complex is a little out there. I enjoy games that simplify itself to a certain level that I can just enjoy on the spot. Lending the player complete freedom can really lead to some frustrating and game ending scenarios that most developers don't want to be a part of. A great example would be the last fireplace puzzle in Myst. Fuck that puzzle. I guess my point is (or TL;DR) that I play games to accomplish things and move forward. I don't want to be driving the highway and the local transportation department to put down cinder blocks in my path simply to make my experience more complex. I want to start at point A, arrive at point B, and feel like I did something.

Old games. Nobody could enjoy those without nostalgia glasses on. They're all objectively crap in every way, and don't let anyone pretend otherwise!

@murisan said:

@Bell_End said:

what is it that TL2 does that D3 does not. as someone that has not played the TL2 beta i would be interested to know

Nothing. In fact, it does less.

Single-player and LAN. Selling of crap loot without going back to town(and buying scrolls/potions). Quest rewards it does better(Even if the quests are less interesting). Skill trees are better than linear skill progression(Runes are better than no runes though. Best system would be an improved combination of both).

No need to fanboy too much.

@Paul_Is_Drunk said:

I wonder how much this will really change. Ubisoft has already demonstrated that popular but not mega-popular brands like Assassin's Creed will get hurt in sales from always-on DRM. I think most companies are smart enough to realize that only people like Blizzard can get away with stuff like this. But it will be fun to see some execs try, anyway. (And by 'fun,' I mean horribly suck, especially if it's a game that I was previously looking forward to).

Soon we'll be getting connection lag while playing some single-player only game.

It will probably be a Ubisoft game.

@WinterSnowblind said:

@djaoni said:

@WinterSnowblind said:

It's not like the requirement of being connected to the internet at all times is there simply for DRM, it's to stop people from hacking and ruining the online experience for all involved (and to keep the auction house economy stable).

It's there exclusively for DRM. How does no single-player stop people from hacking in multiplayer?

Yeah, I think a single player mode would have been nice. They clearly didn't think it was a priority though, and you could just as well argue that requiring to be online for Old Republic or WoW is DRM.

This is literally a non-issue.

I never claimed it was an issue. Just saying that it's there for DRM, and doesn't really help the multiplayer. You couldn't play your closed battle.net characters in single-player, and that's the system it should've used regardless if anyone thinks it's an issue or not.

@gaminginpublic said:

You're exactly right. I've been trying to explain this for weeks. It seems like such an easy concept to understand, but no one gets it. I remember Diablo II when they didn't require that and the online game was completely broken. People look back on it with this sense of nostalgia. I do as well, to an extent. But the game wasn't perfect.

What are you talking about?