Originally posted by Hrimnir

Originally posted by jpnz

Originally posted by Hrimnir

 

There is this thing called implied meaning.  Anyone with any sense can see he was trying to imply that Blizzard makes a quality product.  If he had titled this thread something along the lines of "Blizzard as a business" or something like that.  Then i would be 100% with him.  Credit given where credit is due.  They are a fantastic company at seperating dumb people from their money.

I think you should speak more on behalf of every gamer on why 'playing Blizzard games means you are dumb' /Sarcasm

Talk about 'my personal opinion is FACT' post. Jeez.

Hey, i played WOW for several years, bought D3, etc.  I'm not saying im exempt from it myself.  But its generally the truth.  Blizzard uses human psychology specifically against us for the sole purpose of making money hand over fist.  The days of Blizzard making good games because they want to make fun, exciting games are LONG OVER.  Now, every decision is prefaced by the question of "how will this affect our profits".  Its a sad state of affairs.

*snip*

As you see, the implication in what I wrote, would be I specifically looked for an implied meaning. I did not. I saw a list of numbers attached to a title saying 'blizzard can do no wrong'. The correct implication of title + content is that what Blizzard does results in high numbers, i.e. they know how to make a popular product. 

This is a perfectly reasonable implication of the information provided. It is also understandable to draw the conclusion the OP implied quality. 

I for one said, wait, hold on, if you look at what he actually says, there is another way to interpret the data.

But, thank you for resorting to insulting my ability to apply critical reasoning. 

I can't believe my 3rd section didn't at least make you chuckle. Low blow man.....

 

Woah brother, calm down.  Keep in mind this is written text, its difficult to convey malice or lack of malice in text.  I wasnt making these posts to insult your critical thinking skills or anything like that.  I just responded to the post that for me that was the implied meaning.  I don't think you're an idiot or anything like that.  I do think that people who still play WOW and D3 after everything that has happened are dumb.  I swear its like the gaming equivalent of stockholm syndrome.  Or a battered wife type of thing.

Haha, every post makes you look worse!  I don't care for either game personally and the OP is obviously trolling for a nice long argument thread.

Originally posted by expresso

Originally posted by Rulero

I see no reason how Diablo 3 can be seen as the best of Arpg's other then ignorance. an RPG is about building your character and have some sort of progression. Diablo 3 has none of this. you do not build a character. you just choose a playable character, there is no real customization that will make you unique. evryone is the same.

Whoooo I do +2% dmg to undead so im unique and I've build my char to be different from everyone else.... yeah sure you have?!

What bugs me about this is that diablo 3 has been in development for many years but is weaker in evry aspect then its older brothers except technological advancements like graphics and sound, Yet it sells because it is made by a company that made other succesfull games. so people buy it blindly. it has nothing to do with the real quality of the game.

Have you played D2 after playing D3, go on take a real honest look.

In my opinion while adimitted not as polished as D3, Sacred 2 fallen angel and its expansion Ice and blood are far superior in all aspects and offer a enormous open world and insaneley indepth customization. yet this game gets overlooked an had a shorter development time, and a many times smaller budget

Never heared if it.

Blizzard supposedly being superior and al have put arround 60 - 100 milion into the game but ending up with a toned down technically dated game. For example a game like path of exile is made by an indie studio but offers a ton more content and is made in a shorter timespan and very polished.

It's super easy to put a distributed stats system into a game, in fact is so easy its just damn lazy, look at POE stats system it's just full of +1 that and this - at least blizzard tried something new, might not have been your cup of tea but atleast they stuck their necks out and tried.

I dont understand that how someone that calls itself a real gamer can accept this. and defend it.

We likez what we likez

Im not a hater. i loved wow and diablo 2. but for such a large company with so much funds and manpower i hate them for never being original or intuitive gameplaywise and always staying in the safe zone with refining overused ideas, and never dare to step out of that

See above about being original.

Not say D3 is perfect but I sunk some 80 hours into the game, in a world were the average game takes 10-20 hours to finish I got my moneys worth and then some.

Originally posted by nbtscan
All I know is Blizzard lost me as a customer with the mess that Diablo 3 was. I don't care how it is now; its release left a bad taste I'll never get out of my mouth.

Originally posted by nbtscan
All I know is Blizzard lost me as a customer with the mess that Diablo 3 was. I don't care how it is now; its release left a bad taste I'll never get out of my mouth.

Originally posted by Nadia

Originally posted by Isturi

Blizzard cant do no wrong.

i think most players agree that Cata was their worst expansion *despite* selling the most

 

even Blizzard commented on their mistake

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3881721982?page=10#184

There is almost no reason what so ever to venture out into the world.

That was an error we made with the design of Cataclysm, but getting players invested in the world again is something we're interested in addressing with Mists.
                              

Blizz knows they better catar to thier player base after it is the players who is going to pay the light bill for blizz and I imagine that they prob have a huge light bill.

Originally posted by velmax
No argument their, but if they can create a good game is the question?

 Its funny but when Blizz starts bragging about their numbers it reminds me of McDonalds bragging about how many hamburgers they sell, and we all know they don't make the best hamburgers......OF all their games I ahve only liked one (WoW) and even then I thought it was too easy.

It doesn't make it bad either.  It does mean that a lot of people like it, that alone makes it worth investigating.

edit - a lot of people liking it also means that it is good to/for them.

Since what is good is defined by the majority, there is an argument to be made then that popular = good or perhaps in this case quality.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

It doesn't make it bad either.  It does mean that a lot of people like it, that alone makes it worth investigating.

edit - a lot of people liking it also means that it is good to/for them.

Since what is good is defined by the majority, there is an argument to be made then that popular = good.

Something can definitely be both good and popular.

But popularity doesn't automatically make something good to an individual, and good is not defined by the majority unless an individual let's the majority decide for them what they like and don't like. In other words, good is inherently defined by the individual unless they choose otherwise.

Originally posted by Indol

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

It doesn't make it bad either.  It does mean that a lot of people like it, that alone makes it worth investigating.

edit - a lot of people liking it also means that it is good to/for them.

Since what is good is defined by the majority, there is an argument to be made then that popular = good.

Something can definitely be both good and popular.

But popularity doesn't automatically make something good to an individual, and good is not defined by the majority unless an individual let's the majority decide for them what they like and don't like. In other words, good is inherently defined by the individual unless they choose otherwise.

Society typically decides what is good or bad, while each individual decides what is good to them, society decides on a general level what is good or bad.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
In some languages double negatives reinforce and intesnsify the negative :)

but we're writing english here... 

Originally posted by Indol

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

It doesn't make it bad either.  It does mean that a lot of people like it, that alone makes it worth investigating.

edit - a lot of people liking it also means that it is good to/for them.

Since what is good is defined by the majority, there is an argument to be made then that popular = good.

Something can definitely be both good and popular.

But popularity doesn't automatically make something good to an individual, and good is not defined by the majority unless an individual let's the majority decide for them what they like and don't like. In other words, good is inherently defined by the individual unless they choose otherwise.

Katy Perry is popular but I can't stand her music.  (or anything from the Pop genre for that matter)