You know, when I saw the title of this thread, I thought, naievely perhaps, that it would be coming from someone who'd actually played the game, but I suppose that was too much to hope for.
Now by itself that wouldn't dictate me posting here, but considering some of the posts here, feel I need to jump in, so...
It's basically the steakhouse analogy. As in, people tell you months ahead that they're taking you to a steakhouse, you nod, then when you go, you berate the waiters for serving you steak.
Leoric isn't the first boss of the game (that's Ifriss, or if you want to pull a "technically," Eskarra). The only way you can call Leoric a "first boss" is that he's the boss of the first dungeon.
Now, I actually agree with you in a sense, in that it's overkill to bring Leoric back again, but that's not the main issue, it's more that it messes up Malachi's words in D3 regarding his "final death." Since Leoric's presence here is part of Lethes's story, it's somewhat mitigated, though that said, still overkill.
First, the idea of Blizzard making a new game every 2-3 years is a statement that's really ignorant of how Blizzard's operated since, I'd argue, World of Warcraft - make a game, update the game ad infinitum. If we're discounting expansion packs, 2004 is the real turning point in this philosphy. You can bemoan this approach to games development (which is odd to be, because most of the time people lament annual releases - see Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty), but it's a lament that's 20 years out of date. The fact that there was a brief period of back-to-back releases from 2014-2016 (Hearthstone, Heroes, Overwatch) is an oddity, not a norm.
-You mention Overwatch and StarCraft. First, Overwatch was released in 2016, and had a stream of updates, and they only started to dry up because of Overwatch 2 (a different game that many would argue, myself included, shouldn't have been separate, even if it's techically an update of Overwatch 1.0). Second, comparing the 'ages' of SC1 and SC2 is missing a lot of context. SC1 was released in 1998, and got additional content until about 2001 (barring the SC: Remastered patch update). SC2 was released in 2010, and stopped getting new content in 2020 (and overall, much more content). The development cycles of SC1 and 2 aren't equivalent.
-Much as I'd love Warcraft IV, that wouldn't revitalize Warcraft. WoW's dominated the IP since it came out, RTS games are niche, and Reforged, justifiably, left a sour taste in peoples' mouths.
-Yes, HotS is in maintenance mode, but again, is still being supported. Actually, that's the thing about the 2-3 year thing, because it seems to imply that Blizzard has a "one and done" approach to games. It hasn't. The last "one and done" game it released was Lost Vikings 2.
-A new IP was confirmed earlier this year, remember?
-Diablo IV is almost certainly going to be released in 2023, given how the D3 release cycle worked in regards to the sourcebooks (there's usually a six month gap between the sourcebook and game, so considering that Tales of the Horadric Library will be released in October, 2022, if the pattern holds, you can expect D4 in April, 2023.
Also, the statement that "next to nothing is known about Diablo 4" is a flat out lie.
diablo.fandom.com
If that's "next to nothing," then I'm not sure what level of information would be required to count as "something."
-I don't know where you heard the rumour of a Soulslike StarCraft game. You might be thinking of Project Hades, which was a Soulslike Diablo game.
Working backwards, the list of announcements have gone:
-2021: Warcraft Arclight Rumble
-2021: Untitled survival game (note: for ease of reference I'm referring to this as Fenway from here on out, as it's almost certainly Project Fenway, which was leaked even earlier)
-2019: Overwatch 2
-2017: Diablo Immortal
That's not even including the leaks that have occurred in that time for other games besides the ones officially announced. But regardless, the only way you can claim that the last two announcements have been for mobile games is to cut a lot of stuff out of existence.
Second of all, you get loot after defeating Leoric regardless of anything.
Third, 99c is hardly egregious in a F2P game, especially since it's common for such offers to be made in such models.
Second, you realize that the whole "fuck mobile gaming" thing is similar to how PC elitists have treated console players, right?
Again, though, and no-one's ever been able to give me a serious response, considering that it was already known that a Diablo mobile game was in development before Immortal was announced, and that the announcement explicitly WOULDN'T be Diablo IV, I don't get the reaction. I can get being disappointed by a mobile game's existence ipso facto, but not to that extent.
Now by itself that wouldn't dictate me posting here, but considering some of the posts here, feel I need to jump in, so...
Yes, you can. The majority of gear you get is based on grinding.
You mean the gamers who went to BlizzCon knowing ahead of time that D4 wouldn't be announced, and that a mobile Diablo game almost certainly would?
It's basically the steakhouse analogy. As in, people tell you months ahead that they're taking you to a steakhouse, you nod, then when you go, you berate the waiters for serving you steak.
[/QUOTE]
Leoric isn't the first boss of the game (that's Ifriss, or if you want to pull a "technically," Eskarra). The only way you can call Leoric a "first boss" is that he's the boss of the first dungeon.
Now, I actually agree with you in a sense, in that it's overkill to bring Leoric back again, but that's not the main issue, it's more that it messes up Malachi's words in D3 regarding his "final death." Since Leoric's presence here is part of Lethes's story, it's somewhat mitigated, though that said, still overkill.
Alright, there's a lot wrong with that paragraph. And yes, I know that's a big thing to say, but it seems rooted in a number of misconceptions.
First, the idea of Blizzard making a new game every 2-3 years is a statement that's really ignorant of how Blizzard's operated since, I'd argue, World of Warcraft - make a game, update the game ad infinitum. If we're discounting expansion packs, 2004 is the real turning point in this philosphy. You can bemoan this approach to games development (which is odd to be, because most of the time people lament annual releases - see Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty), but it's a lament that's 20 years out of date. The fact that there was a brief period of back-to-back releases from 2014-2016 (Hearthstone, Heroes, Overwatch) is an oddity, not a norm.
-You mention Overwatch and StarCraft. First, Overwatch was released in 2016, and had a stream of updates, and they only started to dry up because of Overwatch 2 (a different game that many would argue, myself included, shouldn't have been separate, even if it's techically an update of Overwatch 1.0). Second, comparing the 'ages' of SC1 and SC2 is missing a lot of context. SC1 was released in 1998, and got additional content until about 2001 (barring the SC: Remastered patch update). SC2 was released in 2010, and stopped getting new content in 2020 (and overall, much more content). The development cycles of SC1 and 2 aren't equivalent.
-Much as I'd love Warcraft IV, that wouldn't revitalize Warcraft. WoW's dominated the IP since it came out, RTS games are niche, and Reforged, justifiably, left a sour taste in peoples' mouths.
-Yes, HotS is in maintenance mode, but again, is still being supported. Actually, that's the thing about the 2-3 year thing, because it seems to imply that Blizzard has a "one and done" approach to games. It hasn't. The last "one and done" game it released was Lost Vikings 2.
-A new IP was confirmed earlier this year, remember?
-Diablo IV is almost certainly going to be released in 2023, given how the D3 release cycle worked in regards to the sourcebooks (there's usually a six month gap between the sourcebook and game, so considering that Tales of the Horadric Library will be released in October, 2022, if the pattern holds, you can expect D4 in April, 2023.
Also, the statement that "next to nothing is known about Diablo 4" is a flat out lie.
Diablo IV
Diablo IV is the fourth main installment in the Diablo series. The story is centered around Lilith, Mephisto's daughter, who has been summoned into Sanctuary. The game was announced at BlizzCon 2019 and released on January 11th, 2024. In October 8th, 2024, the game received its first expansion...
diablo.fandom.com
If that's "next to nothing," then I'm not sure what level of information would be required to count as "something."
-WoW 2 is a terrible idea. That's an opinion, granted, but has splitting an MMO worked, ever? Remember EverQuest 2? Remember EverQuest Next, how that never even got to release? I'd honestly say that there's a bigger chance of Warcraft IV than WoW 2, and the chance of the former is extremely slim.
-I don't know where you heard the rumour of a Soulslike StarCraft game. You might be thinking of Project Hades, which was a Soulslike Diablo game.
I've already covered this with meiam, but Blizzard hasn't "reguarly pumped out games" since the early 2000s, unless you include the brief blip in the mid-2010s. But this is still fundamentally misjudging how Blizzard's operated in ages. It's also discounting how many of their games are still receiving content (Diablo 2, Diablo 3, World of Warcraft, Hearthstone, Overwatch), were receiving content until very recently (Heroes of the Storm, StarCraft II), plus the maintained servers for everything else (StarCraft 1, Warcraft 3).
You do realize a new IP was announced earlier this year, right?
I agree, but that's true of countless game IPs. I mean, I'd like those things produced, especially since Blizzard's been producing EU material since 2000, but there's no obligation for Netflix stuff, not to mention the free animated shorts that have been produced for all of their IPs, plus how the Warcraft movie bombed.
That's false. That's blatantly false. Even discarding expansions and remasters, that's false.
Working backwards, the list of announcements have gone:
-2021: Warcraft Arclight Rumble
-2021: Untitled survival game (note: for ease of reference I'm referring to this as Fenway from here on out, as it's almost certainly Project Fenway, which was leaked even earlier)
-2019: Overwatch 2
-2017: Diablo Immortal
That's not even including the leaks that have occurred in that time for other games besides the ones officially announced. But regardless, the only way you can claim that the last two announcements have been for mobile games is to cut a lot of stuff out of existence.
First of all, it's not the first boss.
Second of all, you get loot after defeating Leoric regardless of anything.
Third, 99c is hardly egregious in a F2P game, especially since it's common for such offers to be made in such models.
Alright, but why were people caught offguard the first time? It was known ahead of time that Diablo IV wouldn't be announced, and that a mobile Diablo game almost certainly would.
First of all, it's on PC, so not sure how that's an issue.
Second, you realize that the whole "fuck mobile gaming" thing is similar to how PC elitists have treated console players, right?
Per the beta, most people who've played the game have played it for quite awhile.
Yes, it did. Though technically it was Wyatt Chang, who was taken aback by the response.
Again, though, and no-one's ever been able to give me a serious response, considering that it was already known that a Diablo mobile game was in development before Immortal was announced, and that the announcement explicitly WOULDN'T be Diablo IV, I don't get the reaction. I can get being disappointed by a mobile game's existence ipso facto, but not to that extent.
Um, who said that? There was plenty of discussion about the prospect of a battle royal in Halo Infinite, I never saw anyone suggesting that the game should just BE a battle royale.
No, you get rewards as you would in any ARPG. The thing you're seeing there is a discount for beating the first dungeon.
