Diablo 3: Reaper of Souls

[Malakili]

You guys are missing the point. Debating the merits of full-priced box release(s) or no is nice, but irrelevant, if the games are shit.

Well, Starcraft 2 is the best RTS released in a long time.  Granted, I understand that some people don't like that style RTS.  But it is pretty much the best executed one in years and years. 

The SC2 expansion packs are $40 and I expect Reaper of Souls will be the same, so about 2/3 of "full box price" which isn't outlandish for an expansion pack in my opinion. 

I've easily gotten my money's worth out of the recent Blizzard releases, including Diablo 3.  In terms of gaming value for my dollar the only thing that has been equal in the last few years is probably Civ 5 and Counter Strike: GO (which I have played a lot and I think was $15). 

But once Hex comes out every purchase comes with a "This could have been X more drafts" caveat, so we'll see.

[Mrbloodworth]

Because 100 more pages of 'I don't know if you've heard, but the loot in Diablo 3 kind of sucks' would be totally preferable.

lol.

[Megrim]

You guys are missing the point. Debating the merits of full-priced box release(s) or no is nice, but irrelevant, if the games are shit.

Well, Starcraft 2 is the best RTS released in a long time.  Granted, I understand that some people don't like that style RTS.  But it is pretty much the best executed one in years and years. 

The SC2 expansion packs are $40 and I expect Reaper of Souls will be the same, so about 2/3 of "full box price" which isn't outlandish for an expansion pack in my opinion. 

I've easily gotten my money's worth out of the recent Blizzard releases, including Diablo 3.  In terms of gaming value for my dollar the only thing that has been equal in the last few years is probably Civ 5 and Counter Strike: GO (which I have played a lot and I think was $15). 

But once Hex comes out every purchase comes with a "This could have been X more drafts" caveat, so we'll see.

Correction - it is the ONLY rts to be released in a long time.

Having said that, you got as much value out of Civ5 as you did out of D3? Really?

[Tannhauser]

I've gotten a lot more value/fun from Civ V than D3. 

[Malakili]

Correction - it is the ONLY rts to be released in a long time.

The Supreme Commander Games, Dawn of War 2, Sins of a Solar Empire Series, C&C 4, RUSE, World in Conflict, etc.  

I'd be willing to say its the only ultimately relevant RTS to be released in a long time, but still, there have been a bunch of them.

As for the last bit, I don't get your point.  I've played a lot of Civ 5 and a lot of Diablo 3, is that really remarkable?

[Megrim]

 

You said it yourself; obviously it was the only rts which mattered. Rest of the ones you listed were crap and/or inconsequential and you know it.

And yea, it is remarkable that you spent as much time playing Civ5 as you did D3. Ergo my surprise.

[schild]

The only person on Earth that should play as much Civ 5 as they did Diablo 3 is the most ultimate neckbeard, Sky. The Lumberbeard himself.

[Megrim]

Quiet you.

[schild]

Quiet you.

[Rendakor]

I spent more time playing Civ 4 than I did Diablo 3, does that count?

[schild]

no

[lamaros]

I've played more Civ V than Diablo 3. But I did get Civ 5 for free, don't own Diablo 3, and it was only 5 mins difference, so...

[rk47]

I won cuz I didn't buy D3.

[Pennilenko]

I won cuz I didn't buy D3.

I won too, because I got D3 free for playing WoW for a year... oh wait, I still lost.

[Maledict]

I've played far more of Civ 5 than I did Diablo 3 - why wouldn't I? It's a far superior game right now given its had two expansions and numerous patches.

Maybe D3 will recover and become a brilliant game like Civ 5 did, but right now one is a game I would recommend to anyone vaguely interested in strategy games and one is a game I use as a moral lesson for the downfall of great companies.

[Malakili]

You said it yourself; obviously it was the only rts which mattered. Rest of the ones you listed were crap and/or inconsequential and you know it.

And yea, it is remarkable that you spent as much time playing Civ5 as you did D3. Ergo my surprise.

Civ 5 is one of the top games played on steam day after day and has been since release.  Not sure what it is surprising at all that people have sunk lots of hours into it.  But whatever, you seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing at this point.  

[Yegolev]

I'm confused, am I supposed to dislike CivV or prefer DIII over it?

[Paelos]

I didn't like Civ 5 all that much. It had it's moments, but it felt too repetitive and I didn't like the way they went with buildings.

I've dumped hundreds of hours into D3 and probably pulled out $200 over what I bought it for, so it's been worth it in my book.

[Yegolev]

You mean into the AH, right?

[Paelos]

No I play too. While my stuff is selling. 

[Ironwood]

Dancing Monkey :  Reaper of Auction House.

Doesn't really have the same ring.

But then neither did the game.

[Ingmar]

You said it yourself; obviously it was the only rts which mattered. Rest of the ones you listed were crap and/or inconsequential and you know it.

And yea, it is remarkable that you spent as much time playing Civ5 as you did D3. Ergo my surprise.

The Supreme Commander games *could* have been relevant, they were just executed badly. But add me to the list of people who isn't sure exactly what point you're trying to make here, but I liked both games and have plenty of hours in each.

[Simond]

I've played more Civ V than Diablo 3. But I did get Civ 5 for free, don't own Diablo 3, and it was only 5 mins difference, so...

I've played more Diablo 3 than Civ V. But I did get D3 for free, don't own Civ V and it was only 5 mins difference, so....

Civ V was shit, D3 was just disappointing is what I'm saying.

[Teleku]

Have you played it since the expansions?  It was indeed shit at release.  Now I think its one of the best in the entire franchise.

[Simond]

So are you saying that people shouldn't have judged D3 until the expansion was released? 

[Maledict]

Civ 5 was 'fixed' before the expansions. The expansions made it great, but as a game they patched away the fundamental issues before its release. They improved the AI, they made terrain resources count (even adding in a new resource and building), they made buildings worth building, fixed the ICS flaw and addressed a ton of other minor issues.

Blizzard have also patched the hell out of D3, but the fundamental issues around loot and progression remain. I'm not sure they can ever be fixed with the current weapon system but the expansion seems to be an all out attempt.

[dusematic]

I said Civ 5 was shit on day 1 and nobody would cop to it.  Now the conventional wisdom is that it WAS shit but is now cool.  I'm almost tempted to go back and try it again but I just think there were too many core design failures to make that game compelling.

[Ingmar]

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody would cop to it? My recollection is the thread was one giant circle jerk for 4/FFH, with only a few people (me for one) liking V.

[Tannhauser]

I said Civ 5 was shit on day 1 and nobody would cop to it.  Now the conventional wisdom is that it WAS shit but is now cool.  I'm almost tempted to go back and try it again but I just think there were too many core design failures to make that game compelling.

Not true.  We started playing it around page 17 of this thread and we all seemed to like it initially.  My first bitch was about Diplomacy on page 18.

[Mithas]

I played way more Civ V than D3. I am a little ashamed of my Civ V hours played.

[Maledict]

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody would cop to it? My recollection is the thread was one giant circle jerk for 4/FFH, with only a few people (me for one) liking V.

Indeed I think it was just you and me who still enjoyed the game on release. From my perspective it started good and just got a hell of a lot better, to the point where I can comfortably say its the best version of Civ made.

[Sir T]

So' how's the loot in Civ 5?

[Merusk]

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody would cop to it? My recollection is the thread was one giant circle jerk for 4/FFH, with only a few people (me for one) liking V.

Indeed I think it was just you and me who still enjoyed the game on release. From my perspective it started good and just got a hell of a lot better, to the point where I can comfortably say its the best version of Civ made.

No, there were more than just you two.  My direct quote in the FFH thread was, "It's enjoyable it just isn't civs."  Which it wasn't fully until they added the missing pieces of espionage and religion.  The remaining changes are nice twists that have improved the game.  I was always a fan of removing the "stack 'o doom"

[Ironwood]

So, how about those reaping souls, eh ?

[Teleku]

Civilization V:  Reaper of Diablo players.