Diablo Immortal is Finally out....it's trash.
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
I am 100% convinced. Some people are arguing it's a "better" version of D3, but I have to disagree. It feels like a lite D3, where everything was butchered to be played on mobile devices. It stinks of "made in china" vibe
I don't think so. Netease had an ARPG on mobile that was already a knock-off Diablo and from what people on the Reddit are saying Diablo Immortal is just a reskin of that game. The Monetization is even the same. So it looks like D3 but it's not the same engine.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
www.destructoid.com
European countries form up in new call for Loot Box legislation
18 European countries back a new report by Norwegian Consumer Council that calls for legislation on gaming's gacha and loot box mechanics.
www.destructoid.com
Another thing to add for the criticism: The builds are really shallow. If you were expecting D2-esque branching skill trees with tons of opportunities to experiment and play with, this is another thing DI fails at.
It honestly feels like lite-version of D3's skills. Fewer skills, fewer slots, and they auto-rank instead of letting you pick which skills to improve with every level up.
It honestly feels like lite-version of D3's skills. Fewer skills, fewer slots, and they auto-rank instead of letting you pick which skills to improve with every level up.
Right now DI is sitting at 81/100 on metacritic. This is from critics and not users. So come back tomorrow at 12 pm PST to see something glorious on the user side
It does make me think if there is an alternative timeline out there where Blizzard told Activision to f-off during acquision, and they kept making games their way
Technically it wasn't Blizz's choice. They were owned by Vivendi who was bought by Activision. So Blizzard I don't believe had any choice. Unless they had a way to demand to become a separate entity somehow.
So the thing we knew was going to be trash was actual pure sewage. I remember playing Dialbo 3 on 360 and wanting to jump into the series but shit like this and Blizzards other nonsense makes me just back away.
And I personally love how they just released it so quietly among all the shit they are going through that was bold.
And I personally love how they just released it so quietly among all the shit they are going through that was bold.
Bro, Asmon mislead his audience to what Lost Ark actually was before it was out. When it came out he shilled the game in front of half a million live viewers and a million youtube subscribers. A game that was projected to get a couple hundred thousand players at best, now has 10+ million players. Asmon is unironically the biggest reason why pay-to-win is normalized.
He is complaining about pay-to-win and gambling mechanics while spending thousands of dollars on a literal slot machine. He's doing it again, instead of letting a game just die in obscurity like it should have.
Sorry, what's the exact line? The start line is that the game should have a battle royale, not that it should be a battle royale (those are two very different propositions).
Blizzard's survival game has been in development for almost 5 years
It's in a playable state, but we still have no idea when it'll be out.
www.pcgamer.com
Well first, the claim that there's been "no hint of any new content for StarCraft" is another lie. It's been confirmed that Project Ares was revived, so while you could technically argue that doesn't count as a hint, it's very unlikely that a StarCraft FPS would be revived, only to be a new IP.
Second, none of what you said actually countered what I said. You can make a reasonable argument that updates/expansions aren't full games, but again, Blizzard hasn't done that since 2004, and a brief period in the mid-2010s.
NetEase co-developed Diablo Immortal, and Diablo Resurrected was co-developed between Team 3 and VV.
That's "technically" outsourcing, but only in the sense of it being collaberation.
Um, didn't Alyx come out only a few years ago?
Again, this is another fallacy.
Blizzard's built its model on chasing trends. Lost Vikings came from Lemmings. Blackthorne came from Prince of Persia. Warcraft I came from Dune II. World of Warcraft came from EverQuest. Hearthstone came from CCGs. Heroes of the Storm came from MOBAs. Overwatch came from TF2 (supposedly - IMO, they're really different games). Even within, Rock n' Roll Racing built off RPM Racing, and StarCraft built off Warcraft. Arguably, Diablo is their only IP without a clear predecessor.
Also, Valve's kind of done the same thing for awhile, in that their M.O. for a number of games has been to take something popular, make it their own, and polish it. Counter-Strike? Half-Life mod. Team Fortress 2? The same. DotA 2? MOBAs. Artifact? CCGs. Even Half-Life took direct inspiration from Doom and Quake. That Artifact isn't good (supposedly - I haven't played many of the above games, since I'm not fond of Valve's games as a whole) isn't a bucking of the trend.
You're actually more likely to see WC4 or SC3 under Microsoft, actually.
Reportedly, Microsoft's generally more willing for niche games to be made, while Activision has, for quite some time, gone into the model of "one basket, many eggs." Take Age of Empires IV as an example.
Do I think it's particuarly likely? Not really. But certainly more likely than it once was.
Okay, there's a lot of questionable comparisons there.
First, the trend from 1994 to 2004. While I wouldn't call Warcraft I "good" (or WoW, but then, I can appreciate WoW's influence, even if I don't like the game much), this is a red herring. The fact that a company produced more games from 1994 to 2004, compared to, say, 2014 to 2024 is something that's practically universal, given that games have become larger over time, and the cost of production has gone up.
Second, it's telling that your list ends in WoW, because WoW represents the overall shift that I described earlier. This isn't even debatable, as far as release cycles go, you can't place a WoW (or any MMO) in the same category as the games leading up to it, and it's on record that WoW siphoned resources from other games (e.g. StarCraft: Ghost, alas).
Third, the "IP number" is a fallacy. First, those three you mentioned? Lost Vikings, Blackthorne, and Rock n' Roll Racing were left on the wayside, the last release for any of them being in 1998 (Lost Vikings 2). Second, even if we confine this just to StarCraft, Warcraft, and Diablo, it's one thing to create IPs in a quick amount of time, it's another to maintain them. There's a solid argument to be made that Overwatch has basically taken StarCraft's place among the former "big three," especially since Ares was cancelled in part to divert resources to Overwatch 2. If you want a similar example, take Nintendo. I can't even begin to count how many IPs Nintendo has, but it's inarguable that not all their IPs get the same amount of attention. If you want anyone to constantly produce IPs, you have to acknowledge that former IPs are almost certainly going to fall by the wayside.
(This isn't even confined to games. Take Disney - the MCU and Star Wars are its top dogs, while stuff like Tron and PotC are in limbo).
So, for all the people who've accused me of simping, this might come as a shocker, I actually agree that Blizzard's glory days are behind it. However, again, this is a fallacy.
3-4 games over 10 years. First, what's the starting point for those ten years, and second, you can't compare the post-WoW period to the pre-WoW period. Pre-WoW (and I'm speaking universally) it was standard practice to pop out a game, maybe give it an expansion (if it was on PC), then move onto the next thing. Games don't really operate like that anymore. Even supposed "one and done" games often get associated DLC for a period of time. The no. of games released over a period isn't a good method of comparison, and I'm speaking about games/developers as a whole. Look at any long-running IP that has its roots in the 90s, and I can guarantee you that less games have been released per year over time.
In fact, I can produce an example. Let's take Doom. Here's the Doom games that were produced from 1993 to 1997
Doom, Doom II, Final Doom, Doom 64
And here's the Doom games that were produced from 2016 to 2020:
Doom, Doom Eternal
Even if you kick Doom 64 off and compress the timeline, the point remains. It's asinine to complain about fewer games being released in the 2010s than the 1990s because as a rule, games are larger, and more expensive to produce. The number of games released over a period is much less relevant than their quality. It's an assinine way of comparing output. And as you yourself have pointed out, attempts to keep an annual release cycle (CoD, AC) led to a decline in quality. Now, I don't know if that's true personally, but what I do know is that both Activision and Ubisoft have far less variety in their IPs now than they did twenty years ago, so I really don't get this idea that Blizzard (or anyone) can produce IPs ad infinitum without losing some along the way. Again, this has already happened via their legacy games, and the period you cite didn't have an MMO that needed constant updates on the side.
Well first, I don't think you can arbitrarily draw lines for SC2 and D3, because it's undercutting the stuff that was still being released for them. Second, HotS. HotS got released in 2015, if its last hero was released in 2020, you do realize that's a better run than most MOBAs, right, not to mention that the game's still playable, while so many have shut down.
I mean, surely you understand this. Saying that a bunch of games were released back in the 1990s is a false equivalence to the 2010s, with the need to maintain servers, and pay staff to maintain a game.
Last edited:
Get started on watching the videos. What the hell you think I was talking about?
No to both of those.
I know it's in the videos, those videos are long. I don't have time to write posts while also taking time out to watch them.
Wait, no as in both are bad ideas, or no, as in neither line is said?
You can hate Asmon if you want I dont care. But I can tell you that he never lied that Lost Ark wasn't pay to win as fuck. In fact he was very upfront that he didn't care because he liked the game and he took the stance for his audience to watch him whale because he could afford it, rather than trying to whale on the game themselves. He watched several videos about Lost Ark's pay to win and he wasn't happy about it.
He has said for years that WoW is pay to win, and said that he still plays it because he frankly likes the game and that's all there is too it.
A person can complain a game is pay to win while still paying to win. You realize that right?
Do you not have credit cards?
Edit: Darn it, scrolled down and saw that joke was used, like 2 posts later.
Make time when you can. If you can only pick one, then pick the first video. That's all you need.
Both battle royales are bad ideas.
Last edited:
He said was Lost Ark was pay-to-win, but it's okay because the game is free. I don't know about you, but that makes no sense because pay-to-win games are usually free.
He's not giving you a moral lesson on gambling, he's locked behind the paywall and has to keep his hype audience watching before they all leave after 136 weeks of grinding. He doesn't have a problem criticizing Lost Ark because he constantly criticizes Blizzard. That's his audience. It doesn't hurt his view count.
The difference is that in other MMOs you can spend real money in a grey or black market, but this behavior is not condoned or is against the rules. Games like Lost Ark create and run the market. They not only want you to pay, they need you to pay. Otherwise you are a leech driving up their server bill. Moreover they are designed so you pay more than usual.
If you accept a game that's pay-to-win as long as it's good, haven't you just rolled over and accepted it? If a large percentage though the exact same, is that not what you call normalizing it?
Except Madden, Fifa, WoW, NBA 2k, Assassins Creed, etc etc etc
Nody said he was.
Underhanded gold trading, gear selling, carry selling, is against the terms of service for most mmo's
League of Legends is not pay to win. You can buy heroes, and skins, but you cannot buy skill, and no hero out shines any other.
Genshin Impact works much the same way.
Fortnite also isn't pay to win from what I understand as you can't buy skill.
Apex Legends as well.
So you can have a free to play game that relies on players buying at any price and still be highly sucessful. pay to win isn't a requirement.
Yes you have. You can accept a thing and still complain about it. Drinking is legal and accepted by people, but you can still complain when someone get's shitfaces and acts dumb. You can participate in someone while also complaining about it. Hell people do that in gaming all the time, so what's your point exactly.