this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2023
31 points (87.8% liked)
Gaming
19790 readers
62 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Somehow this really surprises me. I'm not sure if I have seen even a single promotional image (except for the cover image on the battle net launcher) but apparently that speaks more of my internet bubble than the games promotional campaign.
But still, Diablo 3 seemed like a much bigger deal. Can anyone speak about how the hype is compared to Diablo 3?
Diablo 3 was following Diablo 2, so there were very high expectations before that.
Diablo IV, has a shown a good amount, and has mostly very positive reviews. It's return to the dark and gritty world of Diablo II. There have been couple of demos, and the game looks and plays great, and most diablo fans are very excited.
One issue the game has, is that it's more of a live service game, so one world, shared by lots of players.
BTW I haven't seen the after-release reviews by normal people, but it has gotten very good rating.
@slimerancher @Magusbear
I think the live service aspect is a bit played up though. You can play the game almost entirely solo, and it seems as though the 'peristent world' is more of a mirage than anything else.
Not a big fan of a BP and cash shop in a $70 game though, which is why I haven't purchased.
If it's anything like the absolute ass that is Overwatch 2's monetization scheme I absolutely will not buy it. I enjoyed Diablo 3 but putting pay to win FOMO bullshit in a paid game, let alone a paid game that they then turned into a free game, is absolutely unacceptable. Battle pass needs to die off, but it won't unless people vote with their wallets.
Is it the same type of cash shop they tried in Diablo 3 at first or something else?
@Magusbear No, it's the 'standard' cash shop that's in every game now - overpriced cosmetic bundles.
Super disappointed by it. I get that it's just cosmetic, but it feels really scummy to have purchasable cosmetics in a $70 game. Just makes me feel as though that content got ripped out of the base game to be sold.
Bad enough. Looking cool is half the fun.
@Magusbear Agreed. It's really sad that the whole 'Pay Us to Look Cool™' thing has become the standard over the last few years.
Call me old fashioned, but I would vastly prefer the older model of selling full-priced DLC expansions every year or two. At least then it didn't feel like development time was wasted on feeding a cash shop.
I'm right with you. I'm a huge fan of the whole souls (games) fashion thing and usually prefer cool armour over stat bonuses (if the game doesn't become impossibly hard because of it).
Yes, content DLCs are my preference as well. I can understand cosmetic shops in free to play games though. I don't necessarily like them, but they at least make sense to me, but not in full priced games.
I see, thanks for the insights!
Why the last ones weren't that great. I own 1-3, only 1 and 2 are worth playing IMHO. I can't wait for the typical broken AAA release lol. The amount of copium is gonna be great.
PS: I do hope I'm wrong, but the game industry kinda blows right now.
it does blow indeed right now. I hope we'll see a change soon but the way things are going it's only going to get worse. Time to invest even more time into indie gaming I guess.
As long as it isn't early access. Been burned way too many times lol.
There are exceptions. Nintendo first party games are generally pretty good, The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom is a recent example, and before that there was Metroid Prime remake and Xenoblade Chronicles 3.
Also Final Fantasy XVI just announced that there won't be a day 1 patch, showing their confidence in the game.
The same Nintendo that hates it's fans. I got a PC I'm not buying a console to play Zelda. It doesn't interest me gameplay wise. I'll take your word it's good, just not what I'm into. Maybe if I happened across a decent trade or really really cheap, but um not interested in consoles/handhelds.
Sure, you don't have to play them. Everyone has their own taste and preferences, but you were talking about the game industry in the context of "typical broken AAA release", and I just gave you a few examples where it's not the case.
If you don't like Nintendo, Sony also generally releases games in very finished and polished state.
If talking specifically about PC, I don't have much information about it, but I do know some of the bigger releases (even Sony's port) were messed up when released on PC, so I can understand your point of view.
I would have a real hate boner for Nintendo as a PC player, but with one exception (Fire Emblem series) they never managed to make a game which i would be even remotely interested in playing.
Hype on 3 was bigger from what I remember, but the in-game auction house was much more controversial than 4's MTX. Also the dumbing down of skill trees in 3 garnered a lot of hate from fans of 2.