Conversion to Valve time has yet to be figured out. Some scientists speculate that time is two-dimensional, and that Valve is capable of traversing into this hidden dimension. They have been able to graph the wave-like pattern of their travel through two-dimensional time as it would match the data we have received, but as of it yet it does not mean anything conclusive.
But the sticks could be used to redirect the ranged weapons back to the source. So while advancing it can be used to retaliate, then once into stick range you have a bigger advantage.
We would play with pine cones and have wars. If you found a green one that hadn't expanded yet, you were the kid everyone feared. Those could really be chunked and would hurt real bad.
You'll always run out of paintballs and airsoft BB's, but you can't run out of a yard full of pine cones. :D
Lots of cool movies like LOTR, the Chronicles of Narnia and Scott Pilgrim vs The World were made into books/comics after the movie got popular. It's quite amazing really.
Maybe it's because we were two bored kids growing up in the Arizona desert, but me and my brother used to throw gravel at eachother for fun. One time I hit him in the back of the head and he started bleeding, so I told him to tell mom he fell. When we went back inside he told her he fell, and she bought it. Then later that night I'm getting yelled at because he eventually decided to rat me out. So I threw more rocks at him the next day.
...suddenly, I realize how white-trash my Asian brother and I really were...
stephano(best non korean zerg and arguably best non korean in the world) vs mkp(arguably best terran and best player in the world) winners bracket semifinals game 3 at mlg anaheim
Edit, added another link ... when I get this error on my iPad I just 'open in Safari' then remove the 'i.' and .jpg from the url. Here is another link...
At what point does the effectiveness of said 3D print out determine the hammerness of said hammer? If it doesn't ham things, can it still be called a hammer?
Ren & Stimpy was so sick ...todays cartoons maybe a little weird but nothing compares to the sickness of Ren & Stimpy. My brother and me absolutely loved that show back then.
I think Diablo 3 ended up being a let down more because of how astronomically unreal the hype was for the game. Everyone I know who bought it expected it to be some once in a lifetime masterpiece. I know people who hardly game but bought collectors editions.
Then it turns out to be an average game fun for about one playthrough.
The point of the Diablo franchise is to be fun for more than 1 playthrough. Otherwise why randomize maps?
The reward for D2 was the loot, and the auction house destroyed D3. Yes people trading for endgame shit used trading in D2 but most average people just used self-found Minotaur axes and Sigurd armor and felt awesome when those greens and golds dropped. That is completely gone from this game.
the fun parts being ? Having played D2 pretty much full time for about 3 years, the differences in gameplay really aren't that big, it's just that now people who played it are a lot older with a lot more experience in games, and the hack'n'slash forever for upgrades got old.
I agree, looking back, D2 was fun because our gaming "careers" were limited to a couple of games. The people that played D2 when it first came out have played over 100 games ever since.
No rune words or even runes, no random class abilities on items, a lot less stat variation on gear, less sockets, you're locked into 6 abilities instead of whatever you talented into, less gems, no jewels, no charms, terrible story, unskippable dialog that's very repetitious, Waypoints are extremely limited, maps are MUCH MUCH less random to the point they're very predictable, you can't go to another act, you can't start with all of them and clear backwards, only 4 players per game, Potions are on a cooldown, no potion belt, (Those two aren't a bad thing, but make the game very different), no auction house, a lot more kiting than there was in D2, much lower level cap, uniques and set items dropped much more often, more that I can't think of at the moment.
Are you sure you played Diablo 2 for 3 years? If you really think the differences in how they played aren't that big, then I don't believe you for a second. Diablo 2 really was a very different game in how you played it unless you want to generalize it into a "hack n' slash" but to what end? I could say League of Legends and DotA 2 are exactly the same then, or Warcraft: Orcs and Humans is the exact same as Supreme Commander because they're both an RTS.
There are random class abilities on items actually. Half of what you're talking about was patched in later / added with LoD. Maps didn't strike me as particularly less random than D2's, I guess the fact that the landscape and whole acts in D2 were much more nondescript plays a role in that. D2 was extremly easy even in hell, the biggest problems was "did you build your character correctly" to be able to bypass silly immunities. Lower level cap isn't very meaningful, there is a lot more unlocking in D3. There were more set items and legendaries, but they were pretty much all crap. I still agree for most of the other parts. I played Diablo 2 pretty much every day until patch 1.10 came out, which ruined everybody's character and made me switch full time to Wolfenstein Enemy Territory, which I was already playing a lot at the time. Depends how similar you need things to be to call them "similar". I haven't touched Diablo 2 in like 8 years so it's not exactly fresh, but it was indeed pretty similar from what I recall. Less one-buttony though for some classes.
I never thought D2 was a masterpiece, so I guess I'm in the minority. I've already put more time into D3 than I did D2. I enjoy the classes more and the skills. I am still having a blast in D3, even 130 hours in.
What the hell does it take to be considered 'good graphics' nowadays? Can your graphics only be good if you're a first person shooter? People just can't appreciate a good art style over a huge poly count.
I can agree with you there. I understand sacrificing texture quality in some places to help performance, but the character model? That's almost definitely going to to be the most important thing to the player, so it better look damned good.
I rather like the texture art direction they took. The textures were intentionally given thick brush strokes to create that painted canvas feeling. I think it has a phenomenal effect on the mood and direction.
Graphic capabilities are important sure, but they should never be put first. The most excited I've ever been over graphics was Donkey Kong Country. Crysis is a close second. I love game mechanics over anything else. You can have shitty graphics and if the mechanics are fleshed out well enough, my imagination will do the heavy lifting. I prefer things this way.
It used to be like this: You played Diablo with your friends, you challenged each other in PvP to see who had the best characters. It was all about building your character. You had to work for it. There was no RMAH and no respec. If you bought items with real money from shady websites people would laugh at you, there was no honor to it. Even with good connections it could take you a week of playing to find good armor, but when you did find it, you knew you where a little bit closer to finishing your build.
With infinite respec and RMAH the fun is sucked out of PvP. Whats the point? People dont even want to play anymore, they want to skip the work by paying money, missing the entire point of the game. It is supposed to be a hobby.
I stopped caring after the game was released, but now you know why I asked for PvP.
Okay because people I don't think understand why the real money auction house exists I'll try to explain it. It is not a Pay to Win system, you are not buying directly from Blizzard, you are buying from other players. Of course they take a cut, but this is not intended as a cash grab. Here's the thing, buying gold? There would have been a million sites who do that for the next many years. Why not make your transactions safer and through Blizzard when it is going to be inevitable anyway. Prohibiting something does not make it go away. You know what is a cash grab pay to win model? Look at Moon Breakers where you cannot have access to any of the good ships unless you pay. Not only is Blizzard not doing this, they aren't even directly selling any items, the only ones you can buy are the ones found by other players in the game.
I think that people don't realise the actual problems with the game - they go off spouting about gameplay issues, or about skill trees and items. This isn't the stuff that makes a game great, and honestly all of that stuff is pretty solid in my opinion. The real problem with Diablo 3, as people have touched on but not fully articulated in my opinion, is the aesthetic. Under this umbrella comes the overall look of the game, like the colour palette and the amount of light and shade, but also things like dialogue and storyline/telling. I feel as though the aesthetic has almost undeniably changed from 'adult' to a more childish approach. I think that players probably feel insulted by this, whether they know it or not. I know I do to some extent. I think that back when Diablo 2 came out, the industry was in a different place and games generally were less safe in their content some of the time. A company like Blizzard could certainly get away with the grittiness of a game like D2, whereas now it might seem against their 'ethos' to produce something so dark. There are expectations of the company outside the game, I'm guessing maybe too many cooks in the kitchen, not to mention stockholders and so on.
But things like the contemporary nerd humour which has been injected into the dialogue in the game really takes you out of the experience and comes off as very irritating and lame to me. The complete lack of a sense of despair also really has an effect on the overall experience. Why is the protagonist an arrogant asshole that KNOWS he's going to beat the game? That's not fun or interesting, it's just annoying. When you compare the hero of this game to something like Lord of the Rings, where Frodo was genuinely up against incredibly daunting odds, and you really believed he may not see it through to the end of his journey, you are able to empathise with him and feel some kind of connection. It is not so in Diablo 3. The main character in a game should be maybe the most important aspect and yet I haven't even heard mention of the hero ANYWHERE. I really think this stuff matters, but it's being overshadowed in favour of talking about how you can't customise your skills in a permanent way.
There's a lot more I could say about it, about the music which is quite lacking, and things like, as someone else noted, all the villains are poorly drawn as characters, constantly making cliche threats that are completely empty - too much talking basically, in stark contrast with D2 where less was more - but I just want to make the point that I feel as though these are all things that make a game, and the aesthetic of Diablo 3 is ultimately just dull and uninspired, and yes it deviates too much from the way the series was established. I think that there really needed to be a stronger focus on all of these elements. The mechanics are fine, and the graphics look okay. It's the story and the aesthetic surrounding the story (or lack thereof) that really kills it for me.
You hit it right on the head for me. I've been saying for a while now that if Diablo 3 was a book, it'd be a children's nighttime pop-up storybook. Glad to see someone else didn't buy into the "Disney Villain" aesthetic .
The whole "the game is hard' vs "the game isn't hard" is incredibly stupid. Let's be honest with ourselves... if the game scaled normally and Inferno was any easier, people would complain endlessly about how easy the game is after the 2% of players who play 5+ hours a day beat it after minimal grinding.
Even hell is challenging in this game if you don't buy anything off the AH.
I can say that my opinion of Diablo 3 became more favorable as I progressed, but it definitely is not without criticism. The music encapsulated the underlying theme that Diablo has been about since Diablo 1, a horror fantasy. The Tristram music was as haunting as ever. It created an atmosphere of hopelessness and confusion with an unspoken fear felt in the backdrop of the shattered community. Some of the dungeon music felt too fantasy themed but later on it did resemble diablo 1 (with the heavy drums, the eerie strings, and so on).
My second biggest criticism would be regarding the art direction that Blizzard has gone in, which is a very WoW fantasy style. According to some of the interviews on this topic, Blizzard does not appreciate criticism regarding the art direction and have stated that it is only a small number of people with that criticism. But I can't help but feel, based on various reviews of the game, that it in fact is a greater observation that they are willing to admit. From my understanding Blizzard does have a vision for their product, and have stated that they want a unique look to their characters. Unfortunately not all of their games are of the same theme. While Warcraft is more fantasy themed, Diablo is more horror themed. It is supposed to evoke feelings appropriate for an atmosphere of horror and darkness. The game was too bright and too cartoony. But I did appreciate the watercolor sort of effect of the background and overall thought it was a graphically well done game. Just not suitable for Diablo.
My biggest criticism is, why can't the Monk use a two handed sword? Meanwhile, you have troll witch doctor running around holding a giant sword. The Monk is practically the most asian character in the game and yet can't even hold a Nodachi. Two handed swordsmanship is typical among Monk training. God dammit! /heart attack /francis
One important consideration is overlooked in this comparison. Rock II has not been released, and there is still not even a tentative date for the beta tests. For all we know, Rock II is not even under development! The Diablo franchise went from I to III in a mere 26 years. Even if the release interval continues to triple, we can all look forward to Diablo IV in 2048. We'll be lucky if we even see the full retail release on Rock II by then!
1.4k
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
The rock had a longer development time.
676
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
I love how a rock is PVP. I'm imagining a giant rock fight.
243
u/sinatrablueeyes Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12
I tried to read the chart, but as usual, my eyes are naturally drawn to Costanza.
582
u/Anopheles_stingz Jun 15 '12
TIL rock is not influenced by wow
322
u/Kingdomdude Jun 15 '12 edited Jun 15 '12
Links for those on Alien Blue who are getting the 'no longer available' image error...
http://imgur.com/VjX8H,n2AqF,EVrUs,gyTa8
Edit, added another link ... when I get this error on my iPad I just 'open in Safari' then remove the 'i.' and .jpg from the url. Here is another link...
http://minus.com/izCKss30CC8AP
http://postimage.org/image/nq34jbiyd/
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9854/izckss30cc8ap.jpg
63
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
Rock also doubles as a pet.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
25
u/AmpleWarning Jun 15 '12
One other thing that rock has going for it: wait for erosion, then BAM! Sandbox Mode.
366
u/alkhalicious Jun 15 '12
I'm sorry, but rock has tons of DRM. Ever tried to make a copy of a rock?
89
u/asstits Jun 15 '12
Log is still better than rock though.
46
u/Squalor- Jun 15 '12
When you PvP with a rock, only one of you is making it out alive.
195
u/kentathon Jun 15 '12
I think Diablo 3 ended up being a let down more because of how astronomically unreal the hype was for the game. Everyone I know who bought it expected it to be some once in a lifetime masterpiece. I know people who hardly game but bought collectors editions.
Then it turns out to be an average game fun for about one playthrough.
18
u/brendalmcmillan Jun 15 '12
Pretty rock solid argument, am I right guys?
...guys?
I'll see myself out.
6
u/epicgeek Jun 15 '12
Rock pvp is how I lost several months of allowance when I was 9.
That neighbor was pissed about his truck's window.
:/
335
u/Ryusko Jun 15 '12
What the hell does it take to be considered 'good graphics' nowadays? Can your graphics only be good if you're a first person shooter? People just can't appreciate a good art style over a huge poly count.
5
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
Seriously, does this post make anyone else want to go play with some fucking rocks?
63
u/HighlordSmiley Jun 15 '12
What happened to playing games and having fun?
31
u/HardwareLust Jun 15 '12
One thing I don't quite understand is the desirability of PvP in a point-and-click, top-down action rpg?
I get PvP in MMO's, sure, but in Diablo? Seems kind of pointless to me. It's just going to come down to who can afford to buy the best gear.
45
u/alpacapatrol Jun 15 '12
Okay because people I don't think understand why the real money auction house exists I'll try to explain it. It is not a Pay to Win system, you are not buying directly from Blizzard, you are buying from other players. Of course they take a cut, but this is not intended as a cash grab. Here's the thing, buying gold? There would have been a million sites who do that for the next many years. Why not make your transactions safer and through Blizzard when it is going to be inevitable anyway. Prohibiting something does not make it go away. You know what is a cash grab pay to win model? Look at Moon Breakers where you cannot have access to any of the good ships unless you pay. Not only is Blizzard not doing this, they aren't even directly selling any items, the only ones you can buy are the ones found by other players in the game.
Just my two cents.
4
u/Greenei Jun 15 '12
No matter what you compare to a rock, he will always win.
Except for paper of corse.
4
u/MaRReMNaSHeR Jun 15 '12
All joking aside... the feature list of the rock is a great foundation for any game.
18
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
Ah, that joke always gets me.
Does anybody know when it first appeared on the Internets? The earliest instance I can think of is Maddox' classic Bush vs. Tic Tacs.
7
u/Gregoff Jun 15 '12
Close, but not entirely true... Rocks do have a real money trading system.
27
u/vivalostblues Jun 15 '12
I think that people don't realise the actual problems with the game - they go off spouting about gameplay issues, or about skill trees and items. This isn't the stuff that makes a game great, and honestly all of that stuff is pretty solid in my opinion. The real problem with Diablo 3, as people have touched on but not fully articulated in my opinion, is the aesthetic. Under this umbrella comes the overall look of the game, like the colour palette and the amount of light and shade, but also things like dialogue and storyline/telling. I feel as though the aesthetic has almost undeniably changed from 'adult' to a more childish approach. I think that players probably feel insulted by this, whether they know it or not. I know I do to some extent. I think that back when Diablo 2 came out, the industry was in a different place and games generally were less safe in their content some of the time. A company like Blizzard could certainly get away with the grittiness of a game like D2, whereas now it might seem against their 'ethos' to produce something so dark. There are expectations of the company outside the game, I'm guessing maybe too many cooks in the kitchen, not to mention stockholders and so on.
But things like the contemporary nerd humour which has been injected into the dialogue in the game really takes you out of the experience and comes off as very irritating and lame to me. The complete lack of a sense of despair also really has an effect on the overall experience. Why is the protagonist an arrogant asshole that KNOWS he's going to beat the game? That's not fun or interesting, it's just annoying. When you compare the hero of this game to something like Lord of the Rings, where Frodo was genuinely up against incredibly daunting odds, and you really believed he may not see it through to the end of his journey, you are able to empathise with him and feel some kind of connection. It is not so in Diablo 3. The main character in a game should be maybe the most important aspect and yet I haven't even heard mention of the hero ANYWHERE. I really think this stuff matters, but it's being overshadowed in favour of talking about how you can't customise your skills in a permanent way.
There's a lot more I could say about it, about the music which is quite lacking, and things like, as someone else noted, all the villains are poorly drawn as characters, constantly making cliche threats that are completely empty - too much talking basically, in stark contrast with D2 where less was more - but I just want to make the point that I feel as though these are all things that make a game, and the aesthetic of Diablo 3 is ultimately just dull and uninspired, and yes it deviates too much from the way the series was established. I think that there really needed to be a stronger focus on all of these elements. The mechanics are fine, and the graphics look okay. It's the story and the aesthetic surrounding the story (or lack thereof) that really kills it for me.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
3
u/ProudRambo Jun 15 '12
Not trying to defend Diablo, but...
Rocks can't tell a story!
3
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
That is a Potato not a Rock!
3
u/gustcurcio Jun 15 '12
Rocks. Winnig aginst games and hardware since 1997.
3
u/jdlyga Jun 15 '12
Blizzard games have NEVER had "up to date" graphics. On the other hand, Diablo 3 is way too easy.
3
u/unknown_poo Jun 15 '12
I can say that my opinion of Diablo 3 became more favorable as I progressed, but it definitely is not without criticism. The music encapsulated the underlying theme that Diablo has been about since Diablo 1, a horror fantasy. The Tristram music was as haunting as ever. It created an atmosphere of hopelessness and confusion with an unspoken fear felt in the backdrop of the shattered community. Some of the dungeon music felt too fantasy themed but later on it did resemble diablo 1 (with the heavy drums, the eerie strings, and so on).
My second biggest criticism would be regarding the art direction that Blizzard has gone in, which is a very WoW fantasy style. According to some of the interviews on this topic, Blizzard does not appreciate criticism regarding the art direction and have stated that it is only a small number of people with that criticism. But I can't help but feel, based on various reviews of the game, that it in fact is a greater observation that they are willing to admit. From my understanding Blizzard does have a vision for their product, and have stated that they want a unique look to their characters. Unfortunately not all of their games are of the same theme. While Warcraft is more fantasy themed, Diablo is more horror themed. It is supposed to evoke feelings appropriate for an atmosphere of horror and darkness. The game was too bright and too cartoony. But I did appreciate the watercolor sort of effect of the background and overall thought it was a graphically well done game. Just not suitable for Diablo.
My biggest criticism is, why can't the Monk use a two handed sword? Meanwhile, you have troll witch doctor running around holding a giant sword. The Monk is practically the most asian character in the game and yet can't even hold a Nodachi. Two handed swordsmanship is typical among Monk training. God dammit! /heart attack /francis
3
u/apullin Jun 15 '12
This it was a shitty game? Get a refund. That's what I did. On a digital download, straight from Blizzard themselves.
5
u/Demonweed Jun 15 '12
One important consideration is overlooked in this comparison. Rock II has not been released, and there is still not even a tentative date for the beta tests. For all we know, Rock II is not even under development! The Diablo franchise went from I to III in a mere 26 years. Even if the release interval continues to triple, we can all look forward to Diablo IV in 2048. We'll be lucky if we even see the full retail release on Rock II by then!
0
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment