PixlBit

Diablo III is as much of a "multiplayer" game or an MMO as Halo is. Multiplayer is just an option in the game, and that's the way it should be. This is a single player game and it wasn't sold as an MMO or a multiplayer game. Like you I've never played a Diablo game before but I've always known about them. Over the course of my life I've never been given reason to believe that this is a multiplayer game or an MMO, so I don't know why people want to lump it in with MMOs or multiplayer games just so they can justify the always-on mandate.

Blizzard has a right to make the kind of game they want and design their own inclusive and exclusive elements to it, but that doesn't mean they're doing the right thing. Pirates will play the game and break it no matter what, it's kinda the whole point of being a pirate or being a hacker guys lol. The people who are actually getting inconvenienced are the law abiding consumers, so I agree with you Esteban. All anybody has been talking about is how they keep getting kicked out of the game. Guess what I never get kicked out of Halo single player, or Fable single player, or Mass Effect single player. When games require internet connection to play it becomes more exclusive. Not everybody has a good internet connection, or one at all. We live in America guys, we have some of the worst internet quality in the developed world. Internet here is slower and more expensive. We assume that everybody has internet and it's just quick, clean, and simple but it's not. Were not in "The Fuuuuuture!" yet.

Mandating an always-on system is like mandating everybody to use solar panels even though most solar panel designs are more expensive and inefficient at the moment. It sounds like a really cool idea at first but for now it's inconvenient, doesn't work very well, and punishes the consumer. Single player games should require very little effort to work. Like electricity, hardware, and software. You shouldn't have to worry about being always-on. If somebody out there who doesn't have an internet connection decides they want to play Diablo III, they will have to pick up some internet and that makes their experience even more expensive because you have to start paying a bill just to play a single player game, on top of buying the game for $60. Meanwhile a pirate will still find a way to get to the game for free.

If internet was in every home, was much faster (like the rest of the world), cheaper, and this always-on was more convenient it wouldn't be a big deal at all but with our current infrastructure it's kind of a big deal. You can live in a remote town of 25 people in the boondocks of Montana and still be able to play the majority of video games out there. You just need the electricity, hardware, and software. If you were talking to somebody younger and told them there was this great game called Half Life back in the 90s, you could actually attain that game and prove to them it existed. Having that kind of history to search through benefits not only consumers and fans but also educators and aspiring designers who want to learn from the past.

When it eventually becomes convenient and logical to shut down Diablo III's servers, nobody will have any proof it existed beyond word of mouth, screenshots, and vids. It's like burning down the Library at Alexandria and loosing all the data and history you have compiled there. If all games operated like Diablo III and required a server to exist, we would cease to have a future capable of documentation and preservation. Games become a freakin' weekend island getaway time-share program. Human beings like stability, predictability, convenience, comfort, and "little" things like requiring an internet connection for a single player (with optional multiplayer) game doesn't meet any of those ideals.

I'm sure that didn't sway anybody, there's plenty of people out there who don't see the big deal and only see the positives, but think about the big picture and the precedent it sets. How would like it if your favorite classic game was lost to time, lived on a server and got shut down, or ceased to be a thing one day? What if Super Metroid, Starcraft, Half Life 2, Final Fantasy 7, or Halo CE weren't capable of being played anymore? Just because you technically and legally CAN make a game "always-on" doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. I don't see how it makes our lives any better and how it thwarts the swashbuckling online pirates out there.

@Jason I kinda feel the same way. I've been playing a lot of Oblivion again with a new character and even though some of the armor designs are pretty cool, you end up quickly getting stuck with the best set of armor for the rest of the game. My character is an expert in light armor, and I've been stuck with the same Glass set of armor (apparently the best when compared to Fur, Leather, Chainmail, and Mithril) and it gets pretty old.

One of the reasons I really like Fable games is because you can personalize everything, you can wear whatever you want, shop for whatever you want, and customize colors how you want. There's downsides to that obviously, there's no armor lol. I like my RPGs and I love being able to compare stats, get excited about a new set of protective armor, and to put it plain and simple I like all the numbers and analysis of it. With Fable the clothes are just aesthetic. I'd like to have games where that level of aesthetic personalization runs current with a deep statistical system I can chomp on.

This surely isn't how Bungie wanted to break the news, or how I wanted to hear about it, but I don't actually feel like anything is spoiled at all. I'm extremely excited and can't wait to hear more about the series they're working on. It's been so long since they went dark and stopped letting news out and I've been patiently waiting for eventual reveals, it's cool they're finally happening. What's even cooler is that, as the contract states, the first installment of their new series will be out next year! Jesse said recently that he was getting really excited for 2013 in gaming, and I'm with him especially now that Bungie's next game will be coming out. Whenever the hype train shows up, I'm gonna be hopping on for the ride.

Awesome article, awesome news break.

@Angelo Thief 3 is compatible with 360, and is only $10 used? That great! You are still absolutely right, I need to get some of those games. I've heard good things about that series. Your recommendations are going to end up making me buy some of those games. They sound like something that I will really want to play.

@Esteban Morrowind and FO3 definitely focus heavily on the RPG aspects of their design, and I agree RE focuses more on the puzzle side. When people talk about what they like about the first RE they often cite the open nature of the mansion and the experience they had exploring it. It's exploration, it's adventure, in a great gameworld. And it's one that a lot of people really liked. I know Rob and Julian from the Triforce Crew really love that game and would absolutely recommend it without thinking twice, and they're not wrong. I myself won't recommend it though lol, just like I wouldn't recommend shooter fans go back and play Goldeneye (shooters have come a long way since then, and for the better. Mucho Better!).

As I was saying, a lot of people cite the exploration and adventure of exploring the mansion. When it comes to exploring really interesting and dangerous environments I prefer to play the other games I mentioned (they were mostly RPGs, except for Mirror's Edge) because they have great world building, level design, and varying gameplay where I can use stealth or action to help me survive.

You're right about thinking of the game in its context. It doesn't hold up to me now and I don't enjoy playing it, but back then it was a technical achievement. Just like Morrowind was a technical acheievment in 2002 but nowadays it's very difficult to get into. Oblivion made so many giant improvements over Morrowind that gave Oblivion a faster pace, fast travel, better combat system, an engine that ran the huge amount of content much better than Morrowind's engine ran its content, and it's was simply better in every technical way. Then Skyrim came out, and even though I haven't played it, I heard on the Giant Bombcast that Bethesda pretty much made the game they were going for this whole time. They took lessons from Morrowind, lessons from Oblivion, and made their best game to date with the knowledge and experience they have from previous titles.

If you try to go back and play Morrowind it's pretty painful. It's dreadfully slow, the performance is a mess, especially if you know how much more fun and polished it is to play either Oblivion or Skyrim, but back when Morrowind came out I was completely blown away by it technically and creatively. Oblivion has the best gameplay and is technically superior, but when it comes to creativity I still have a place for Morrowind in my heart because it has the best music, best atmosphere, and the culture and landscapes of the Morrowind province are really cool in the Elder Scrolls lore.  It's probably the same with Resident Evil. Back then RE was a big deal and achieved quite a lot for a video game of the time, but that was back then.

The first RE movie was terrible, but the other ones are pretty cool. The 2nd movie with Jill Valentine is "better" but it's still pretty weak. I really started getting into the RE movies with the 3rd and 4th ones. Let's face it, the RE games didn't set a high bar, they don't have good stories whatsoever. People didn't fall in love with RE because of the characters and story. The game was a campy, stupid, mess that was laughable, not to be taken seriously. With the 3rd and 4th Resident Evil movies, the people making the movies just started making up their own story and developing the characters they wanted. The stories that unfold in the 3rd and 4th movies are good enough to watch. They might not be "good Resident Evil movies" but you know what? Resident Evil games aren't really great games to start with and they don't have good stories, so the RE movies can only go up! Lol, that's why I say that the movies have done a better job telling stories than the games.

@Angelo Lol, Rodrigues was pretty scary when she started trying to eat people.

That's part of my point. People call it survival horror out of habit but did those SH and RE games earn it? I say no. What kind of survival are you actually doing? Solving puzzles, gathering stupid gems, continuing to explore a dangerous mansion, dogs jumping through windows, sharks? Survival? No.

Walking across uncharted territory in Fallout 3 or Morrowind, being attacked by creatures, having no health items, money, or Almsivi Intervention scrolls, having to sneak to avoid any more damage, sleeping in a bed you randomly came across in a broke down van in Fallout 3 just so you could hopefully wake up when there's light out so you have a better chance at living, only engaging in a firefight at your own peril, running into town so that guards will protect you from a monster chasing you in Morrowind, that seems more like survival. Not being able to compete with a dozen troops in Mirror's Edge and having to run for your life and squeeze through tight spaces and navigate vertically and horizontally, seems more like survival to me.

RE and SH aren't really survival horror. They're more like adventure horror, does anybody else see it? When people want to survive they don't mix herbs together, grab a weak pistol with 6 ammo, hunt down gems, have no melee ability, and tank around deeper and deeper into a mansion full of sharks, dogs, and junk lol. That's an adventure guys, and a choice. Those characters want to be there and they want to keep doing crap. People give those games so much credit and I'd rather just give them the bit of credit they earned instead of putting them up on a pedastal like others do. They don't define the genres for me and they didn't really set a high bar as far as I'm concerned. The Resident Evil movies have better stories and characters than any of the games seem to have had, and there's plenty of other games out there that mechanically and atmosphereically do "survival" and "horror" better, whether those two completely different elements are seperated or combined.

I see and play Resident Evil and it's okay I guess, but it makes me think, "This is what people put on a pedastal and think is a grand achievement? This is suppose to be something to emulate? We can do so much better than this!"

That's cool, I understand what you mean. It's always good to explore why you play these types of games, what works for you, and what kind of games you should hunt down and play.

Horror and survival aren't the same thing and I don't like when people (out of habit) lump the two genres together and say survival horror. They're not the same thing at all, but people have been using those two descriptions to describe any game that's remotely suppose to be scary. You can have horror in any setting and with any set of controls. People assume that you can only have horror if your slow as ass, using tank controls, and only have 2 bullets. Being deprived of ammo is good, but bad controls and a slow monotonous pace isn't good.

A lot of people suckle at the nostalgia teets of old Resident Evil and Silent Hill games but I don't see why they're so great. They're not fun to play, I don't get as much out of them as other people do. As far as "horror" goes, I've had much better horror in FEAR and Condemned. As far as "survival" goes I've had much better survival experiences in Mirror's Edge and Morrowind. Resident Evil and Silent Hill can go to the corner and slap on the dunce cap for all I care. Yea...I went there lol.

I dream of making a stealth-evasion-survival game that has a horror atmosphere. You can't really fight your way through anything, and you need to use stealth and parkour to avoid danger. The balance of parkour and stealth would provide different paces of gameplay and options for players in encounter spaces.

I just don't get why people think slow paces and bad controls contribute to scares. It would be great to go the other route and make a horror game that's mechanically sound and fun to play. Resi-Evil and Silent-Hillz = pretty boring. To me. I can't relate to those characters, mechanics, and game worlds. Real people aren't tanks, and real life isn't that slow and simple. Real life horrors can be dynamic, fast, and make you use your brain, instincts, and environment to survive. Horror is subjective so whatever atmosphere and scare content you put in is just hit and miss, but when it comes to survival pretty much every human being has survival responses and instincts. Survival games should be more relateable, let you move and act like a human being would, give you an environment you can take advantage of like a human being would, and engage those survival instincts.

@Esteban Sounds like your horror gaming/film quest is going pretty well, definitely give yourself some experience points for not having any problems with Dino Crisis. I think the recommendations the Triforce Crew had lin last weeks Pixltalk were pretty good. Alan Wake is probably a good thing to play in regards to easing you into the genre(s). I also have to say it's cool your going to watch the first Silent Hill movie. I love that movie. I went to see it in theatres with my friend and I loved it, bought the dvd, and I still watch it from time to time. The music is excellent, the acting is pretty great, and it has great atmosphere for the most part. The Silent Hill movie is one of the few times that a gaming inspired movie has gone "right" and been really cool to watch.

Getting back to games though, I have to ask, when you're in a horror setting do you find survival or intense action more fun? A game like Silent Hill will deprive you of ammo, and make you survive by improvising with melee weapons or simply running. A game like F.E.A.R. (my personal favorite) will terrify you and make you survive, but in an action packed way. FEAR is the only game I've ever had a nightmare about (Alma scares me to death), but it is also a very competent and satisfying shooter Esteban.

If you're one of the people that would like to experience horror and great atmosphere while also being empowered at times and having a great shooter experience, you should play FEAR. Those games do a great job of breaking up the pacing, varying the gameplay, and giving you both action and horror. Depriving players of ammo and immersing them in constant dread isn't the only way to make a great horror game. FEAR and Condemned proved that there are other ways.

I'm with you Mike. People cry out for innovation all the time and claim it's not there, but it's everywhere and people either don't notice or don't appreciate it. People would likely cry out for this to be incredibly different, and then if the game actually turned out to be very different you can already imagine enthusiasts writing articles about how it strayed too far and lost its fan base or enraged some vocal group. At the end of the day if this game doesn't have the Call of Duty name attached to it, people won't buy it the same way they'd buy it if it did have the name. People won't play it if it doesn't have that solid mechanical system they are accustomed to.

I'm not a story hater, I think stories are important to games that have one planned for their game, but I'm grounded enough and reasonable enough to know what I want and what to expect. I know why these games are designed the way they are and why they work. The first CoD game I played was MW2 right before MW3 came out (I was a late bloomer to the games) and about halfway through the campaign it all clicked in my brain. I look around at where cover is placed, how levels are set up, how encounter spaces are set up, how fast the characters move, the amount of ammo you have, the behavior of the AI, and it all made sense to me halfway through that first CoD experience I had. For years I avoided the games and hated them because I'm a Halo fanboy, but like I said, I eventually got around to playing MW2 and I figured it out pretty quick. I don't share the same design goals as their team does and I would prefer to design games more like Portal and Crysis, but I saw why CoD works and why it's a ton of fun.

I agree with your ideas for changing the AI. I would love to have a CoD that plays more like Halo or Crysis AI. In Halo and Crysis enemies have their own routines and patterns programmed into them and they won't know you exist until they see you or you compromise your stealth. I can sneak into areas in Halo or Crysis and enter a battle on my own terms most of the time. In CoD the AI is programmed to spawn and begin attacking you (and only you) the second you cross a boundry (a trigger box most likely) in an area. I've become pretty good at taking cover, popping up, and shooting enemies who are exposing their heads or shoulders as they're behind their own cover, but that gets pretty old. They definitely need more dynamic AI, like what RAGE did, or what Halo and Crysis do.

You know how every CoD has designated stealth levels, vehicle levels, and run-and-gun levels? They should stop designating entire levels to one playstyle and begin building their levels and AI to accommodate all those styles at once like how Halo and Crysis do. I think that would be a welcome change. It would slow the pace down (which Julian would be happy about) but most importantly it would offer variety and replayability (something designers pine for these days).

Some people might say that opening the levels, adding some architecture to sneak through, and allowing players the freedom to slow the pace would make it too different than that straight forward CoD style, but I honestly think it would be much better because it would give you a choice. In the CoD games I've played, they always have those arbitrary stealth levels and they always allow you to sneak up on a guy at some point and stab him in the face with a knife, right? That's a positive experience. It's a positive spike in a player's arousal levels and what I would do is allow the players the infrastructure and sandbox to let them engage that positive arousal response at their own will and choice.

Instead of letting stealth be some restricted or scripted one-off experience, it should be available at all times in an encounter space. Just as straight up gun-fights and cover based shooting should also be available at all times to players. It's been done before, and done well. It's a proven formula that can lead to great gameplay, and CoD should get in on it.

Hopefully it's more of the same in a more interesting setting. There's nothing mechanically wrong with any of the CoD games. They aren't broke, they aren't boring, they aren't poorly made. They're well made, solid, the engines run near flawlessly for what they're trying to accomplish, the controls are responsive, and I always get what I expect. Nothing less, nothing more.

I don't care about the stories at all in these games so I'm not on the same boat as people who want to see it get really serious, intellectual, emotional, and become some kind of expose to teach kids the horrors or war, politics, and crap. That's not what these games are for and I'm not clamouring for them to transform into some entirely new franchise. The gameplay is what made CoD popular, not a story, so there shouldn't be a story shoved down your throat, especially if they just don't have a story they really want to tell. The story and setting for these games has always been extra curricular, it's always been built around the gameplay and serves 2nd to the gameplay which is the way it should be. The thing that seperates gaming from other mediums is interactivity, and if gameplay isn't your #1 priority than why are you making a video game? If gameplay isn't the core of the game than the interactivity is sacrificed and you'd be better off not bothering at all.

If I cared about story first I'd read a book lol. I'm playing CoD to get great gameplay and it's some of the best in the shooter market so there's nothing wrong with what they're doing. I assume with this game they will add some new features here and there just like any franchise like this does. There will be some new-ish guns, new set pieces, maybe some new mechanical features added to the movement or combat mechanics to add some small element to exploration and combat, etc. Other than that it should be very familiar, which is good. If I wanted to play something "different" or "new" that I haven't experience before I'd go play something else lol. It's simple. If you want CoD to be something other than what it is, than why are you playing and worrying about CoD? Go play Crysis 2, Halo 4, Portal 2, or Borderlands 2. If I was playing Ridge Racer and I wished it was more serious, realistic, and grounded, I'd go play Gran Turismo. CoD doesn't have to be the end all be all of shooters, and it doesn't have to do "everything". It's fun the way it is and games are about being fun, stories come second (If you even care to tell a story that is).

As long as Black Ops 2 is has fun levels to walk around in, AI that's fun to shoot in the face, guns that are nice to look at, fire, and listen to, and some shock & awe, it will be a pretty cool game to add to the series. Don't overthink it and try to turn this into poetry or an educational apparatus, it's not poetry and it's not meant to be educational. It's a simple, solid, war game.