Support NeoGAF

[InertiaXr]

This guy has the same first name as my last name, should I feel embarrassed?

 

[Dresden]

What's astonishing is that you still don't get it. Perhaps if you stopped being defensive/condescending, with some lordly above-it-all bemusement, and read and processed what some people are saying to you with even a modicum of humility, you might actually learn something and do your job better.

The problems are these:

1) You pose a question that no one gives a shit about, and then come to the conclusion that we were all at in the first place. The fact that you came to the same conclusion doesn't prove that you're on board with all the "ragers" and that therefore they had no beef -- it proves that you just wasted everyone's time with something that was inherently obvious and therefore not worth writing about in the first place. You think people misunderstood you because they didn't read all the way through. Wrong. The problem is that we DID read all the way through and realized you had nothing--zero--interesting or thoughtful or productive to say about the game.

2) Not only is Diablo one of the single biggest PC gaming franchises , but MANY OTHER of the biggest franchises--and not just RPGs-- ALSO have used isometric perspectives for decades now. You write about it as if it's some wacky, newfangled thing you've never heard about, which, sorry, makes it hard to take you seriously, even if you claim to be "first and foremost" a PC gamer.

3) You have access to a beta of something a great many people are dying to know about. There were so many angles you could have taken to write about---even as a noob who'd never played Diablo before. That, in fact, is a great perspective to have, as I'm sure many younger gamers are coming into the series fresh. But your angle is: "Let me take a totally moot point around a design decision made 15 years ago and then decide that, yep, that was a good decision after all." How in the world do you think that serves anyone, let alone the PC gamers who are your audience?

4) If you really wondered, as a journalist, why Blizzard didn't do a first-person perspective, why didn't you ask THEM? A couple quotes from the design team on that point might have actually been interesting, rather than lazy, masturbatory speculation.

5) Your analysis of why Diablo's mechanics aren't difficult *because* of the perspective makes no sense and is laughable to the many, many people who read your site (you know, actual PC gamers), who know just how complicated the strategies can be. Why the heck do you think there are 10 zillion sites devoted to the topic? Dismissing the game as "too easy" because (of all things) the isometric perspective is a nonsensical leap of logic that would be embarrassing in any article. That it comes from the editor-in-chief of the site is, to use your word...astonishing.

6) Your dismissive tweets, now followed by your second post saying you won't bother replying to any comments because you've said your piece, just shows you actually aren't listening to anyone in the first place, or care. Everyone is wrong but you. That must be a nice place to live, inside your head. Kinda sad for your readers, though.

 

[LiK]

Wow, King ButtHurt in the flesh. You are weak Bennett Ring.

lol yea, embarrassing

 

[Spider from Mars]

Jeff Green and Bennett.

 

[jman2050]

What's astonishing is that you still don't get it. Perhaps if you stopped being defensive/condescending, with some lordly above-it-all bemusement, and read and processed what some people are saying to you with even a modicum of humility, you might actually learn something and do your job better.

The problems are these:

1) You pose a question that no one gives a shit about, and then come to the conclusion that we were all at in the first place. The fact that you came to the same conclusion doesn't prove that you're on board with all the "ragers" and that therefore they had no beef -- it proves that you just wasted everyone's time with something that was inherently obvious and therefore not worth writing about in the first place. You think people misunderstood you because they didn't read all the way through. Wrong. The problem is that we DID read all the way through and realized you had nothing--zero--interesting or thoughtful or productive to say about the game.

2) Not only is Diablo one of the single biggest PC gaming franchises , but MANY OTHER of the biggest franchises--and not just RPGs-- ALSO have used isometric perspectives for decades now. You write about it as if it's some wacky, newfangled thing you've never heard about, which, sorry, makes it hard to take you seriously, even if you claim to be "first and foremost" a PC gamer.

3) You have access to a beta of something a great many people are dying to know about. There were so many angles you could have taken to write about---even as a noob who'd never played Diablo before. That, in fact, is a great perspective to have, as I'm sure many younger gamers are coming into the series fresh. But your angle is: "Let me take a totally moot point around a design decision made 15 years ago and then decide that, yep, that was a good decision after all." How in the world do you think that serves anyone, let alone the PC gamers who are your audience?

4) If you really wondered, as a journalist, why Blizzard didn't do a first-person perspective, why didn't you ask THEM? A couple quotes from the design team on that point might have actually been interesting, rather than lazy, masturbatory speculation.

5) Your analysis of why Diablo's mechanics aren't difficult *because* of the perspective makes no sense and is laughable to the many, many people who read your site (you know, actual PC gamers), who know just how complicated the strategies can be. Why the heck do you think there are 10 zillion sites devoted to the topic? Dismissing the game as "too easy" because (of all things) the isometric perspective is a nonsensical leap of logic that would be embarrassing in any article. That it comes from the editor-in-chief of the site is, to use your word...astonishing.

6) Your dismissive tweets, now followed by your second post saying you won't bother replying to any comments because you've said your piece, just shows you actually aren't listening to anyone in the first place, or care. Everyone is wrong but you. That must be a nice place to live, inside your head. Kinda sad for your readers, though.

 

[JABEE]

Godamnit you guys need to continue Out of the Game

This. It's been far too long.

 

[cluto]

This guy has the same first name as my last name, should I feel embarrassed?

Ugh. I can't even look at you.

 

[GraveRobberX]

Hey folks

I've always been a PC gamer first and foremost, kicking off with MS Flight Sim when I was 10 years old. My experience in the RPG genre is limited, though I'm a big fan of RPG-lite since playing Fallout 3. But no, I had never played Diablo. Shoot me - I was totally up front about this in the article. Guess what - I'd never played Starcraft until SC2 came out. The shame!

WAT!?!, So you never experienced anything in the genre that you wrote the article for, this whole pondering/questioning of should they add this and here is why or not, and the reason you give is that because you played a sub-genre game (FO3), you likened it to others and it should follow in that footstep

Finally, and here's the fucking kicker - the article agrees that Diablo III should never have been a first person game

So you wrote an article, without realizing the backlash it would receive. You brought it upon yourself. How can you say "Hey guys I think Diablo III would be awesome as a FPS, everything is FPS these days, don't you feel the immersions, I can talk about this cause I'm a gaming journalist, and I've been an expert in this field for a long time. I mean Isometric, what are we in the '80's and appease those Dungeon and Dragon freaks, these are the pros and cons I lay out, but in the end I think its a bad idea..."

WTF?!? Then why bring it up in the first place. Why try to incite something, either it is for hits or just trolling. It's like you going to the public park, you go take a stick (article), hit the beehive as hard as possible (those nerds and their rage), when the bees come out to attack, you run away screaming at everybody, that was a bad idea, and try to backtrack by saying you were just trying to help start a discussion

Horrible analogy I know, This is GAF, need sleep

 

[pelican]

http://au.pc.gamespy.com/pc/diablo-iii/1195932p1.html

Bennett Ring
@jane_tobes Ha, pretty good eh? Who'd have thought Diablo fans would have more rage than the COD kiddies?


Bennett Ring
@jane_tobes It's easy - find a game that has the nerdiest following, and have an open discussion about radically reinventing it.


http://twitter.com/#!/bennettring

=\

This guy sounds a right tool.

Poking at a hornets nest for new reason except to make himself look ridiculous. Great journalism Gamespy.

edit - another reason to ignore this. Didn't realise Gamespy was a division of IGN and therefore a News Corp company. Fuck those guys.

 

[Salazar]

This guy sounds a right tool.

AUS-GAF has shredded his membership card even before it was issued. We time-machined that shit.

 

[BadTaste]

Jeff Green who?

Anyway funny thread, maybe one for the archives.

 

[Orayn]

This guy sounds a right tool.

Poking at a hornets nest for new reason except to make himself look ridiculous. Great journalism Gamespy.

edit - another reason to ignore this. Didn't realise Gamespy was a division of IGN and therefore a News Corp company. Fuck those guys.

What put him over the top was his "OH YEAH? WELL, YOU'RE A FANBOY SO I DON'T HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO YOU! NEENER NEENER NEENER!" antics in the wake of the article. I don't know whether to laugh, sob, or cry bloody tears of anger. Maybe I'll do a little of all three.

 

[shintoki]

Once they start name calling, they got nothing left.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

I'd buy a FPS diablo. I loved Resistance 2's co op mode, Borderlands, and am loving Dead Island. All 3 had multiplayer, loot, exp, and upgrades. I'd like more of these games, more on the Resistance 2 co op side.

 

[Orayn]

I'd buy a FPS diablo. I loved Resistance 2's co op mode, Borderlands, and am loving Dead Island. All 3 had multiplayer, loot, exp, and upgrades. I'd like more of these games, more on the Resistance 2 co op side.

You know what? I would too, bat as a spinoff. Loot whoring co-op action-RPGs can work just fine in first person with some alterations to the basic formula. It's just that Mr. Ring came up with the dumbest, most superficial arguments for why it would be good for the existing Diablo series to go 1st person. His "I'm so used to flanking and shooting" nonsense didn't help the horribly misguided case he was attempting to make.

 

[NullPointer]

Holy shit. My head was still reeling from the topic when I saw the Jeff Green response.

 

[PetriP-TNT]

I love how offended people are about this.

My Diablos ;_;

It's just gaming journalism. It is a good piece? Well no. Did it bring up emotions? Well yes. I guess it was successful even if it was crap.

 

[Dead Man]

Six excellent points

Indeed.

 

[Reuenthal]

If you lack knowledge about something it isn't a crime. Just don't write articles about the subject you lack knowledge about. That was your problem Bennet Ring and the reason of you being criticized and not fanboys overreacting.

 

[jambo]

Just found these

 

[Zeliard]

lol @ the guy's tweets.

So comically indignant. "Also, I'm not sure if you've heard of Fallout, Syndicate and XCOM. You might like to use Google to educate yourself about them." He actually wrote these words, the same man who said that an isometric viewpoint doesn't lend itself to gameplay depth.

I can imagine Jeff Green's rancor: "this guy is representing my old profession." Not to mention job title.

 

[DukeTogo1300]

The chic intellectual specs Mr. Ring, take them off, they are liars.

 

[Riposte]

I initially dismissed this thread with a sigh. So happy I took a look.

 

[Emitan]

I should apply for a job at GameSpy. Doesn't seem that hard to get hired.

 

[Mr_Appleby]

I love how offended people are about this.

My Diablos ;_;

i don't think the average person is offended in an omg-think-of-the-diablos way, rather at the stunning lack of knowledge of the industry he supposedly writes about.

to speak about the industry as though 90% of games are first-person is one thing, but for a 35 year old pc-based gaming journalist to have never played an isometric game is an outstanding achievement in itself. there should definitely be some kind of award for this - I propose The Bennet Award for Outstanding Excellence in the Field of Journalistic Obliviousness.

 

[krameriffic]

He wants Diablo: Ghost. Just because the Starcraft version never made it past alpha stages doesn't mean the Diablo version can't!

 

[red731]

What the fuck? I was just having this discussion with a friend like a week ago and when he said something like diablo and fps I started breathing heavily and knocking on my forehead.

First time playing Diablo?? Is he under 15 or what? What is he doing there..

Man, the rage... stupid article.

 

[AngmarsKing701]

What drives me batty is the utter lack of research here. You get the D3 beta, you get a chance to tell your slavering readers about the improvements, changes, etc from D2. But guess what? You never played it! Why wouldn't you pop that in and play around with it for a few hours to compare with D3? Isn't that a better angle? Instead you pop off some absolute BS about it not being an FPS. Dude should be fired.

 

[The Dutch Slayer]

BEST STORY EVER!

 

[Seraphinianus]

if you put Jeff Green in a suit, he looks like he could be a U.S. president (I think it's the whole salt-n-pepper hair thing)

 

[Barrett2]

Jeff Green, a fuckin' boss.

 

[The Dutch Slayer]

hahhahaha

Greenspeak Jeff Green
Putting my money where my mouth is, I'm spending today writing a column for the next ish of PC Gamer.(Hint: It won't be about a FP Diablo!)

Greenspeak Jeff Green
Actually some of you have guessed correctly: it's about a first-person Peggle. Be The Ball!

 

[Calcaneus]

Jeff Green just pulled some Riki-Oh shit on that guy. Total annihilation.

 

[Alexios]

It took just three hours before I'd hacked and slashed my way to the main storyline's satisfying conclusion

Um, is this for real? 3 hour campaign? Wtf? Even if that's on the easiest difficulty with buffed up characters, wtf?

 

[TheExodu5]

Um, is this for real? 3 hour campaign? Wtf? Even if that's on the easiest difficulty with buffed up characters, wtf?

He means the beta. It took me closer to 1 hour.

 

[Rayme]

Um, is this for real? 3 hour campaign? Wtf? Even if that's on the easiest difficulty with buffed up characters, wtf?

The beta is only a small slice of the very beginning of the game. That's what he's talking about; he played through the available beta quests.

 

[monlo]

how the fuck do you become the editor in chief of a videogame website without ever playing DIABLO

 

[Interfectum]

my god, jeff green destroyed him. wow.

 

[Cipherr]

What's astonishing is that you still don't get it. Perhaps if you stopped being defensive/condescending, with some lordly above-it-all bemusement, and read and processed what some people are saying to you with even a modicum of humility, you might actually learn something and do your job better.

The problems are these:

1) You pose a question that no one gives a shit about, and then come to the conclusion that we were all at in the first place. The fact that you came to the same conclusion doesn't prove that you're on board with all the "ragers" and that therefore they had no beef -- it proves that you just wasted everyone's time with something that was inherently obvious and therefore not worth writing about in the first place. You think people misunderstood you because they didn't read all the way through. Wrong. The problem is that we DID read all the way through and realized you had nothing--zero--interesting or thoughtful or productive to say about the game.

2) Not only is Diablo one of the single biggest PC gaming franchises , but MANY OTHER of the biggest franchises--and not just RPGs-- ALSO have used isometric perspectives for decades now. You write about it as if it's some wacky, newfangled thing you've never heard about, which, sorry, makes it hard to take you seriously, even if you claim to be "first and foremost" a PC gamer.

3) You have access to a beta of something a great many people are dying to know about. There were so many angles you could have taken to write about---even as a noob who'd never played Diablo before. That, in fact, is a great perspective to have, as I'm sure many younger gamers are coming into the series fresh. But your angle is: "Let me take a totally moot point around a design decision made 15 years ago and then decide that, yep, that was a good decision after all." How in the world do you think that serves anyone, let alone the PC gamers who are your audience?

4) If you really wondered, as a journalist, why Blizzard didn't do a first-person perspective, why didn't you ask THEM? A couple quotes from the design team on that point might have actually been interesting, rather than lazy, masturbatory speculation.

5) Your analysis of why Diablo's mechanics aren't difficult *because* of the perspective makes no sense and is laughable to the many, many people who read your site (you know, actual PC gamers), who know just how complicated the strategies can be. Why the heck do you think there are 10 zillion sites devoted to the topic? Dismissing the game as "too easy" because (of all things) the isometric perspective is a nonsensical leap of logic that would be embarrassing in any article. That it comes from the editor-in-chief of the site is, to use your word...astonishing.

6) Your dismissive tweets, now followed by your second post saying you won't bother replying to any comments because you've said your piece, just shows you actually aren't listening to anyone in the first place, or care. Everyone is wrong but you. That must be a nice place to live, inside your head. Kinda sad for your readers, though.

how the fuck do you become the editor in chief of a videogame website without ever playing DIABLO

Its not just that, its being a VG website editor that also considers himself a primary PC gamer. Those two combined make it really strange to have never touched diablo.

 

[Interfectum]

Hey folks

'Tis I, the trolling Bennett Ring here, to fill you in on my motivations for writing the article in question. Here goes - hopefully you'll have the courtesy to read this post the entire way through, unlike the article itself.

Firstly, I apologise for not having played every triple A game that has ever existed. I'm actually a 35 year old gamer who prefers shooters (total Battlefield whore), action games (Gears, Castlevania, etc) and hardcore simulators (iRacing, DCS). I've always been a PC gamer first and foremost, kicking off with MS Flight Sim when I was 10 years old. My experience in the RPG genre is limited, though I'm a big fan of RPG-lite since playing Fallout 3. But no, I had never played Diablo. Shoot me - I was totally up front about this in the article. Guess what - I'd never played Starcraft until SC2 came out. The shame!

Secondly, I had absolutely no idea this story would provoke such a response. I'm serious. I thought it was an interesting fluff piece to discuss for newcomers to the game, given that most major isometric games are making the jump to first person (Fallout did it well, XCOM is looking good based on my last E3 hands-on, nfi what Syndicate is going to be like). I wanted to write about my time with the Diablo III mod, but couldn't do a detailed "This is what's improved piece" given my inexperience with the series. I figured this would make an interesting angle that looked at why Blizzard didn't do choose first person.

Finally, and here's the fucking kicker - the article agrees that Diablo III should never have been a first person game. Sadly most readers only got half way through the piece before letting their Diablo rage boil over, and then felt it was their right to ask for my head on a plate. I urge you to actually read the entire piece, specifically the last half, which talks about why Diablo III had to be an isometric game. And yes, I do believe the isometric viewpoint is fresh, given that very few games have used it in recent years compared to third and first person. This is why I'm rather amused by the reaction - the ragers didn't even read the full story to realise that I'm agreeing with them. It's astonishing.

Again, I just want to reiterate that I never intended this to blow up - I was expecting a couple of thousand clicks, nothing major, where readers could share their thoughts about whether Diablo III could have worked as a first person game. Guess I was wrong.

What's astonishing is that you still don't get it. Perhaps if you stopped being defensive/condescending, with some lordly above-it-all bemusement, and read and processed what some people are saying to you with even a modicum of humility, you might actually learn something and do your job better.

The problems are these:

1) You pose a question that no one gives a shit about, and then come to the conclusion that we were all at in the first place. The fact that you came to the same conclusion doesn't prove that you're on board with all the "ragers" and that therefore they had no beef -- it proves that you just wasted everyone's time with something that was inherently obvious and therefore not worth writing about in the first place. You think people misunderstood you because they didn't read all the way through. Wrong. The problem is that we DID read all the way through and realized you had nothing--zero--interesting or thoughtful or productive to say about the game.

2) Not only is Diablo one of the single biggest PC gaming franchises , but MANY OTHER of the biggest franchises--and not just RPGs-- ALSO have used isometric perspectives for decades now. You write about it as if it's some wacky, newfangled thing you've never heard about, which, sorry, makes it hard to take you seriously, even if you claim to be "first and foremost" a PC gamer.

3) You have access to a beta of something a great many people are dying to know about. There were so many angles you could have taken to write about---even as a noob who'd never played Diablo before. That, in fact, is a great perspective to have, as I'm sure many younger gamers are coming into the series fresh. But your angle is: "Let me take a totally moot point around a design decision made 15 years ago and then decide that, yep, that was a good decision after all." How in the world do you think that serves anyone, let alone the PC gamers who are your audience?

4) If you really wondered, as a journalist, why Blizzard didn't do a first-person perspective, why didn't you ask THEM? A couple quotes from the design team on that point might have actually been interesting, rather than lazy, masturbatory speculation.

5) Your analysis of why Diablo's mechanics aren't difficult *because* of the perspective makes no sense and is laughable to the many, many people who read your site (you know, actual PC gamers), who know just how complicated the strategies can be. Why the heck do you think there are 10 zillion sites devoted to the topic? Dismissing the game as "too easy" because (of all things) the isometric perspective is a nonsensical leap of logic that would be embarrassing in any article. That it comes from the editor-in-chief of the site is, to use your word...astonishing.

6) Your dismissive tweets, now followed by your second post saying you won't bother replying to any comments because you've said your piece, just shows you actually aren't listening to anyone in the first place, or care. Everyone is wrong but you. That must be a nice place to live, inside your head. Kinda sad for your readers, though.

 

[stupei]

I love how offended people are about this.

My Diablos ;_;

It's just gaming journalism.

People want writers to be good at writing lolz internets, cry moar, am I rite?

 

[Zomba13]

I take it Gamespy decided to use this to come up with articles?

 

[ThaiGrocer]

I take it Gamespy decided to use this to come up with articles?

That website speaks the truth on frequency of this kind of crap. I think fluff pieces from gaming websites need to be moderated here from now on. Not banned, moderated. They're essentially there to generate traffic and pointless emotional feedback from places like GAF. Shame on them for not figuring out how to spend their time wisely. There are very interesting stories out there that need reporting. I just ball up in a corner and repeat to myself, "these are the growing pains of game journalism."

 

[Kintaro]

WTF? I pop back in just for a chuckle and found out Black Fucking Dragon just unleashed his own Cataclysm 4.3 patch on that poor dude.

Well done.

 

[Dysun]

Jeff Green is my hero

 

[rakhir]

I take it Gamespy decided to use this to come up with articles?

Oh God...
- Top Ten most uncomfortable guns in videogames.
- Should Call of Duty be an action game?
- Should Metroid be a breeding simulator?
But seriously, some of the randomly generated 'ideas' are genuinely better then the crap on those sites.

Also it's funny that the topic is basically done with Jeff Green post, we can't really write anything better.

 

[FStop7]

http://i.imgur.com/mgk8w.jpg

Wow. Neckbeard, hipster specs, AND duckface.

 

[solarus]

I take it Gamespy decided to use this to come up with articles?

Good god that site is amazing, I thank thee.
"What Xenoblade could learn from Mario."
"What Animal Crossing could learn from Gran Turismo."

 

[Gary Whitta]

Best reaction .gif possible.

 

[Gary Whitta]

I take back my previous statement.