Monday, March 12th 2012

Diablo III: No PvP at Launch

Blizzard announced that its highly anticipated title, Diablo III, will not ship with Player vs. Player (PvP) gameplay, because its development and refinement is holding Blizzard back from meeting the April 17, 2012 launch date. "The PvP game and systems aren't yet living up to our standards," said Jay Wilson, Game Director. The PvP component will instead be added to the game as a patch, months after the game's launch. The patch will include PvP arenas, achievements, and a matchmaking system. The arenas, according to Wilson, will be "as brutal, bloody, fast-paced, and awesome as we know they can be."

Source: RPGamer
Add your own comment

92 Comments on Diablo III: No PvP at Launch

#1
Prima.Vera
Mussels said:
whats wrong with starcraft II? all i see is whining you didnt get a massive gigantic game (three campaigns), instead of how its being done, split into three games.

its just massive crybabying, and seems to have no valid argument. the game has massive SP, epic MP, and is constantly patched and updated with new (free) maps put out all the time.

its quality game and one of the most polished i've ever played.
Massive SP? hehe! I've finished it in less than 1 week, playing only a couple of hours/day, and I've got so bored compared to the first one. Crappy missions, no depth, game felt so cheap and...empty...
Posted on Reply
#2
Mussels
Moderprator
Prima.Vera said:
Massive SP? hehe! I've finished it in less than 1 week, playing only a couple of hours/day, and I've got so bored compared to the first one. Crappy missions, no depth, game felt so cheap and...empty...
so finishing it in less than a week isnt good enough, when most SP games these days are done in 5-6 hours...


now you're just trolling.
Posted on Reply
#3
CrAsHnBuRnXp
Not to mention there is only like 45 minutes worth of gameplay in the beta.
Posted on Reply
#4
AlienIsGOD
Zubasa said:
Actually if you want PVP you shouldn't play any blizzard games except the RTS'
PVP balance is something Blizzard fails at in WoW.
actually i really enjoy WoW PvP on my arms warrior and feral druid. I do NOT enjoy the old Warcraft games at all, so plz don't assume that i should
Posted on Reply
#5
Ahhzz
Mussels said:
so finishing it in less than a week isnt good enough, when most SP games these days are done in 5-6 hours...


now you're just trolling.
No, he's not, and No, it's not. Try 200+ hours in Skyrim BEFORE the release of the CS. THAT is good enough. And it's still going. Try 100+ in Freelancer, almost 10 years ago. THAT is good enough. Starcraft 2 is a disappointment in comparison to the first one, and I expected better from Blizz, especially as a sequel.

Diablo 3 would probably be a fun game to play. But with real money AH, and no LAN play, it's not getting my cash. It, too, is a disappointment, not because of the game play, which I expect will be excellent, but because of the business choices of Blizz. Whomever is to blame for those decisions, Activision, EA, US Congress, whatever, those decisions will cost them my money, and my fiance's. I can't speak for any others, but it's a disappointment.
Posted on Reply
#6
Mussels
Moderprator
Ahhzz said:
No, he's not, and No, it's not. Try 200+ hours in Skyrim BEFORE the release of the CS. THAT is good enough. And it's still going. Try 100+ in Freelancer, almost 10 years ago. THAT is good enough. Starcraft 2 is a disappointment in comparison to the first one, and I expected better from Blizz, especially as a sequel.

Diablo 3 would probably be a fun game to play. But with real money AH, and no LAN play, it's not getting my cash. It, too, is a disappointment, not because of the game play, which I expect will be excellent, but because of the business choices of Blizz. Whomever is to blame for those decisions, Activision, EA, US Congress, whatever, those decisions will cost them my money, and my fiance's. I can't speak for any others, but it's a disappointment.
its a multiplayer game, not a single player. try counting those hours.
Posted on Reply
#7
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
Ahhzz said:
No, he's not, and No, it's not. Try 200 hours in Skyrim BEFORE the release of the CS. THAT is good enough. And it's still going. Try 100 in Freelancer, almost 10 years ago. THAT is good enough. Starcraft 2 is a disappointment in comparison to the first one, and I expected better from Blizz, especially as a sequel.
...and what of custom maps? It's a little easier to make a fully-fledge mod in SC2 than it is in Skyrim. You can't say that SC2 is crap because of Single Player because Blizzard invested a lot of time in multiplayer and the ability to create rich and powerful custom levels. Now regardless of the quality of custom levels, there is a lot you can do with SC2 as an engine which is what makes it a good game in my honest opinion.
Posted on Reply
#8
Ahhzz
Mussels said:
its a multiplayer game, not a single player. try counting those hours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freelancer_(video_game)

Freelancer features a multiplayer mode, allowing up to 128 players to play together in a game.[9] Multiplayer games are hosted on game servers; personal computers that meet the requirements for the game can act as a server. Gameplay is similar to the single-player mode, but is absent of story-driven quests. Because the server keeps individual records of the players' progress, they can resume their game when they next log on to it. A persistent virtual galaxy is thus maintained for them.[10]

Fine. Multiplayer from a game 10 years old. 100+ hours in SP. THAT is the quality that many gamers came to expect from Blizzard. Even Warcraft 3 had dozens of singleplayer gaming hours.

What it comes down to, is that Blizzard disappointed many with their staggered release of a game to make more money, and the perceived sell-out to a mentality of not just "money before the customer", but "money at any cost". Blizzard is making money (they ARE a company, after all), and they mostly make good games. And, for most people, they won't care about the quality, because there's such a gluttony of games out there to occupy, who cares, really? But for some, the loss of faith in Blizzard is a sad realization.
Posted on Reply
#9
digibucc
Maelstrom said:
I'm curious, could you go into more detail as to why?
instead of intricate tit for tat, it become who got the best map spot and spammed the construction queue. there's no strategy in that, and it was very boring for me.
Posted on Reply
#10
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Ahhzz said:


Fine. Multiplayer from a game 10 years old. 100+ hours in SP. THAT is the quality that many gamers came to expect from Blizzard. Even Warcraft 3 had dozens of singleplayer gaming hours.
You can't really compare Skyrim and Freelancer to Diablo. And I have probably spent about 100 hours or more in D2, so I don't see what you're getting at there. Also, SC2 will be three games (yes you pay full retail price for each one whatevs). AND it was pretty clear all the time that they would focus a lot more on multiplayer than anything else. In SC2 the campaign is more like a bonus than the basis.
Posted on Reply
#11
AsRock
TPU addict
DannibusX said:
You guys aren't looking at the big picture.

This is the first time Blizzard releases an incomplete game. Until this point, it's always been "It's done when it's done."

You can argue that Starcraft 2 is incomplete, but that's not necessarily true. Wings of Liberty is a very complete game. Instead of including all 3 races campaigns in the initial game and expanding on all 3 races with expansions, they work on each race individually. I'm not bitching, SC2 is awesome.

Blizzard as we knew it before Vivendi merged with Activision is gone.
Another sad memory that there never be a game like FEAR 1 and no hope of being a FEAR 4 which is like FEAR 1 lol.
Posted on Reply
#12
Maelstrom
Ahhzz said:
Starcraft 2 is a disappointment in comparison to the first one
Single player campaign wise, I disagree. I found SC2's to be far more enjoyable, in that immediately after I beat it the first time I started a new game. I've gone back multiple times to try to beat SC1 and Broodwar's campaign again, and I get bored after the terran part in the first game.

Can't comment on multiplayer though.
Posted on Reply
#13
Ahhzz
AsRock said:
Another sad memory that there never be a game like FEAR 1 and no hope of being a FEAR 4 which is like FEAR 1 lol.
*sigh* I agree here... FEAR 1 and 2 made my fiance scream, and made me jump a coulpe of times. 3 was pitiful.
Posted on Reply
#14
Ahhzz
Maelstrom said:
Single player campaign wise, I disagree. I found SC2's to be far more enjoyable, in that immediately after I beat it the first time I started a new game. I've gone back multiple times to try to beat SC1 and Broodwar's campaign again, and I get bored after the terran part in the first game.

Can't comment on multiplayer though.
Fair enough, personal preference is the whole reason we have anything resembling an intelligent discussion on here :) :toast:. Some people won't care about the $AH in D3, or the lack of LAN play. For my fiance, she was ok with no LAN play, as long as we could find each other online, and limit who else played with us. Once she heard about the $AH tho, she was done.
Posted on Reply
#15
Wheat
mrw1986 said:
@CrAsHnBuRnXp
I completely agree with you. I love how people put on their tin foil hats and get all pissed off about something that was never even said. I hate nothing more than when people assume stuff like that.

@[H]@RD5TUFF
Honestly, I take all of the stuff you are saying with a grain of salt. Anyone with that much hate towards something should be disregarded. You are acting like they took your first born and burned down your house. Clearly you know nothing of Blizzard.
Well you're missing out SC2 came with a more flexible map editor than Warcraft III. Buying SC2 gives you access to so many creative and community driven games types that you didn't just get one game you got a game builder and access to all that content as well. It's was money well spent from my perspective.
Posted on Reply
#16
Mussels
Moderprator
Wheat said:
Well you're missing out SC2 came with a more flexible map editor than Warcraft III. Buying SC2 gives you access to so many creative and community driven games types that you didn't just get one game you got a game builder and access to all that content as well. It's was money well spent from my perspective.
single player missions, challenge missions, all the SP, coop and MP maps patched into the game for free...


i wonder if theres a way to show how many hours i've gotten out of it so far
Posted on Reply
#17
Zubasa
AlienIsGOD said:
actually i really enjoy WoW PvP on my arms warrior and feral druid. I do NOT enjoy the old Warcraft games at all, so plz don't assume that i should
You do not enjoy a good PVP game is your choice, but that does not make WoW PVP any good.
Raping noobs in my full glad gear was fun for a while, but it gets old fast ;)
On top of that class and spec balance is pretty bad for WoW, and for someone who like variety in PVP, WoW and MMOs in general is pretty much shit in that area.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment