'll admit it. My first ever hands-on time with any Diablo game occurred just 24 hours ago, when my inexperienced Demon Hunter took his first fumbling steps into the Diablo III beta's dark and ominous dungeons. It took just three hours before I'd hacked and slashed my way to the main storyline's satisfying conclusion, but in that short period of time my eyes were opened to an entirely new perspective on a gaming world. As a lover of first person games, the isometric camera system in Diablo III felt very unfamiliar, and I inevitably wondered why Blizzard didn't make the leap to first person like so many other developers. This led me to wonder - should Diablo III have been a first person game, and what are the pros and cons of this approach? Let's find out.
yeah. mirror's edge, with more of a weird physics system, played like darkwind war on wheels. would be fantastic. haha.Pylon_Trooper said:I tell you what, I'm 100% serious I would love to play that. Especially if it was a WEGO system.
Also, I might be alone as well in wishing Hawken was also a realtime tactical game, or another WEGO TBS.
GunSlingerAUS said:Hey folks
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.
it was what hellgate was, yeah. diablo as a direct character control first/third person shooter/melee. the perspectives and controls wasn't what was wrong with that game though.KrawlMan said:Maybe it's already been said, but wasn't this what Hellgate London was going for? (FP Diablo-esque game)
Wasn't that a shooter? Borderlands did it too.KrawlMan said:Maybe it's already been said, but wasn't this what Hellgate London was going for? (FP Diablo-esque game)
GunSlingerAUS said:Hey folks
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.
GunSlingerAUS said: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.
But I guarantee you have the time to read every single response to come in this thread.GunSlingerAUS said:Yes, that was meant to say "Diablo III beta".
Also, I'm not going to be replying to any feedback on my comment - to be frank, I really don't have the time to spend days debating this, which would be inevitable given the reaction to the initial story. I've laid out my thoughts on why I wrote the piece, and it's up to you whether or not you agree with it. Have at it.
JeffGreen said: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.
JeffGreen said: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.
JeffGreen said: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.
JeffGreen said: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.
JeffGreen said: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.
Yep, that's pretty much it right there.JeffGreen said:Why the article is retarded
There are at least a few things that have motivated the backlash towards the article, and I'll attempt to summarize.GunSlingerAUS said: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.
JeffGreen said: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.
Orayn said:Holy shit has anyone read his Tweets?
@stillgray Also, I disagree with your statement that Fallout 3 was weaker for the changes. The massive sales figures imply I'm not alone.
Kraut said:No wonder Ryan Scott left.
3 minutes later...GunSlingerAUS said:Hey folks
Wow, what a jerk move. Nothing against you, personally, but just going off these posts and your twitter comments you appear to have no respect for any of your readersGunSlingerAUS said:Also, I'm not going to be replying to any feedback on my comment - to be frank, I really don't have the time to spend days debating this, which would be inevitable given the reaction to the initial story. I've laid out my thoughts on why I wrote the piece, and it's up to you whether or not you agree with it. Have at it.
GunSlingerAUS said:Yes, that was meant to say "Diablo III beta".
Also, I'm not going to be replying to any feedback on my comment - to be frank, I really don't have the time to spend days debating this, which would be inevitable given the reaction to the initial story. I've laid out my thoughts on why I wrote the piece, and it's up to you whether or not you agree with it. Have at it.
JeffGreen said: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.
mik said:Should Jeff Green's post have been written in the third person?
Neato_Jinkins said:if only you wretched dorks had suffered through the entirety of my rambling hypothetical, you'd have found that in the tortured conclusion i disagree with my own premise. nerds.
gunslinger out
Wow, King ButtHurt in the flesh. You are weak Bennett Ring.jambo said:Just saw this from his Twitter
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
=\