Winter Driving Best Books of the Month Men's Leather Watches Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon $5 Albums All-New Amazon Fire TV Subscribe & Save Amethyst Jewelry Find the Best Purina Pro Plan for Your Pet Amazon Gift Card Offer jstfd6 jstfd6 jstfd6  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 Kindle Voyage Shop Now SnS
Customer Discussions > Diablo III - PC/Mac forum

Diablo 3 or Torchlight 2? You Would Be Surprised!


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 889 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Aug 13, 2011 10:27:33 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 13, 2011 10:48:04 AM PDT
NeuroSplicer says:
At first glance it seems unfair even to compare Torchlight 2 to Diablo 3. After all, the later is a greatly anticipated sequel to a monumental series, about to be released after 10(!) years in development. The other appears to be the heir to the casual game Fate. There cannot possibly be a comparison, right?
Well, you'd be surprised.

--- WHICH ONE IS THE COMPLETE GAME?
Strange thing but it cannot be Diablo 3. Because unless you are willing to melt in front of your computer loot-mining your life away, the really cool weapons and armor will have to be bought separately - using real money! And, like any fur-donning/ivory-cane-swinging/strutting pimp, Blizzard will have its cut no matter what.
WINNER: TORCHLIGHT 2.

--- WHICH ONE IS THE CHILDREN'S GAME?
A game named Diablo with no pentagrams, crosses or any "religious symbols"? Why? What happened to the world because Diablo I & II were chock full with such symbols?
Does Blizzard aims to replace atavistic and collective unconscious fears with gross lardy bosses and exploding monsters?
WINNER: TIE. Both are obviously aimed at children (or at least childish adults).

---WHICH ONE IS ACTUALLY BOUGHT?
If the information I came across is confirmed, Torchlight 2 will come with mandatory STEAM tie-in. This withholds final ownership of one's copy but it will still work in offline mode if your DSL connection is down.
Diablo 3 not only never actually becomes yours but not even a single-player game is possible if you momentarily loose your internet connection!
WINNER: TORCHLIGHT 2 (by a nose).

---WHICH ONE IS THE TRUE HEIR TO THE DIABLO SERIES?
Torchlight 2 is designed by the people who actually made Diablo I & II.
In contrast, Diablo 3 appears to be nothing but a flashy shell for Blizzard's insatiable greed to hide under. Well, it fails to do even that because anyone can see their shallow intentions picking through.
WINNER: TORCHLIGHT 2.

It does not look good Blizzard. Not good at all...

Posted on Aug 13, 2011 10:51:20 AM PDT
Kruger says:
You can not compare Torchlight to the Diablo series. Torchlight is a Tonka Truck - Diablo is an Aston Martin.

I have Torchlight, and it was great. But, it left so much more to be desired. It felt like WoW with Diablo elements.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 13, 2011 11:03:42 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 23, 2014 4:59:26 AM PDT
NeuroSplicer says:
HaHa! I just knew it would be you CHARLES...(EDIT: Name of shill changed to JIM some weeks later - and after numerous changes to cover his tracks, it is now...KRUGER)
(are you going to keep this up until November? Best of luck man!)

An...Aston Martin you say? Well, if by that you mean that the closest one ever comes to one is at a Car Show, yeah, it feels like someone else's Aston. One you can rent for the price of buying a new one - and still only be allowed to drive it around with a Blizzard man in the back-seat.
And if you are thinking of picking up some ice-cream on the way, that back-seat man will make sure to lick it first!

For what I have seen, it is D3 which looks like WoW 1.6 CHARLES.
If inspiration were easy we would see more proof of it, wouldn't we?

Posted on Aug 13, 2011 5:21:31 PM PDT
LET me get this straight you are going to sell me a disc that i cant use for 60 bucks till you SAY I can play the game then your going to tell me if I want to do good in the game and get the GOOD stuff I have to pay for it ??? I dont get it people complain about our goverment and the direction the nation is going in and then offer up their souls to play a game. I will NOT give one cent to someone for nothing and thats what i get walking out of the store with a useless disc.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 13, 2011 5:30:31 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 14, 2011 7:48:01 AM PDT
Kruger says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 13, 2011 5:32:20 PM PDT
Kruger says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 13, 2011 6:54:47 PM PDT
Alan S says:
If I'm going to have to wait until the hackers liberate my ownership rights... why exactly would I buy the game in the first place?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 13, 2011 8:04:45 PM PDT
Sudeley says:
I'd have to compare it as diablo = Mercedes (highly expensive and expensive to upkeep) and Torchlight = Toyota (Cheap and hardly anything to maintain if any).

and in my book id rather own a Toyota than a Mercedes, a Toyota looks much better.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 13, 2011 8:09:27 PM PDT
Sudeley says:
That is if the crackers add coding to do lan by simulating battlenet.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 14, 2011 7:50:33 AM PDT
Kruger says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 14, 2011 9:15:29 AM PDT
Sudeley says:
needs to cater to normal operating procedures. how do you play it if the net goes down, or god forbid battlenet goes down. very annoying and uncalled for. I dont need it to cater to exactly what i want but i do need it to cater to be able to be played whenever i want. and it wouldn't hurt them to allow moding like d1 and d2. torchlight 2 will have offline play, mods, no requirement to be on net 24/7 to play. the morons at blizzard are just greedy. I used to believe they were a perfect company, and they were, but they changed to accommodate corporate greed.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 14, 2011 9:38:28 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 14, 2011 9:40:10 AM PDT
NeuroSplicer says:
Ah, when one shakes hands with the Devil(*), he should not then complain about dirty palms.

One should only expect His mark to be stronger on ...his own game, right?

_______________________________________
(*)aka: Activision/Blizzard boss, Bobby Kotick

Posted on Aug 14, 2011 10:16:35 AM PDT
Blizzard does what they want, when they want. Its a right they've earned.

1) To date, they haven't released a flop--and they rarely scrap (Ahem, SC Ghost) projects they spend any real development time on.
2) You will own the game. You won't play it offline (hackers notwithstanding). IMHO, playing an RPG for any length of time offline is pointless. You pick a class and perfect a role to... drum roll... PLAY A ROLE. Why would I want to amass fortune and loot that I can't "pwn" someone with? To borrow the Aston Martin reference--why would I want TO EARN an Aston Martin to drive it in a world where no one lived to see me driving it?
3) The developers moved on to Torchlight 2 from Blizzard, but does that imply that the best part of Diablo moved too? I would argue no, in fact, making the business decision to assemble a team to meet the challenge of topping D2 (in a gaming community that is now sensitized to WoW) gives me more confidence in Blizzard.
4) If some functionality in the AH requires real money doesn't it stand to reason that you might EARN real money as well? Hard-core gamers have spent countless hours across countless games. I know in my heart of hearts I could have used that time more productively but I chose to game (we all have our vices). Had there been a game with amazing game play that I could earn real money I'd be much better off financially.

Just my 2c.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 14, 2011 10:45:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 14, 2011 10:48:06 AM PDT
Sudeley says:
I had my best diablo 2 characters on single player or lan play with just 1 other person. so single player characters are not useless. I do not care if you can play single player than port it over, that is useless. id rather have a single player char and a multi player separate and keep it that way, so you can have offline play. I will still play the game, but most likely pissed off at the hindrances. If i get too pissed i will most likely turn my back on blizzard if they do not straiten up after diablo 3. they should have just did the SC2 thing, have it check 1 month after last login. And Wow for me took points away from Blizzard I tried it, it was the worst mmo i have ever tried. and believe me i have tried almost all that has came out. and blizzard lost points for sc2 for the online check 1 per month. now d3 will loose alot of points me specially if they have network issues and disconnect me when i am at a critical point.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 14, 2011 11:02:47 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 14, 2011 11:12:25 AM PDT
Kruger says:
"and it wouldn't hurt them to allow moding like d1 and d2"
Actually - it did hurt,.. it hurt the players and Blizzard stepping in a banned a whole mess of accounts, who used exploits via modding.

" the morons at blizzard are just greedy. I used to believe they were a perfect company, and they were, but they changed to accommodate corporate greed."
A bigger moron is someone who still buys from Blizzard, yet still hates them.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 14, 2011 11:17:39 AM PDT
Kruger says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 14, 2011 11:21:04 AM PDT
Sudeley says:
Actually - it did hurt,.. it hurt the players and Blizzard stepping in a banned a whole mess of accounts, who used exploits via modding.

it did not hurt the closed battlenet. and thats only for people who made cheats. I made a mod for diablo 2 and it was excellent and fun to play, and fun to actually make.

A bigger moron is someone who still buys from Blizzard, yet still hates them.

alittle strong, i hate their current ways of they change their ways back to the good corporate practices like in diablo 1 or 2 or star craft. all they have to do is 3 changes. 1. no greed market (atleast do not tax the transactions), 2. allow offline play for dedicated single player character, and 3. allow a dedicated lan player character. then they will redeem themselves on d3. i dont care if other people condone this behavior just what counts for me and me only.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 14, 2011 11:23:15 AM PDT
Sudeley says:
People are worried that Rich_Boy_69 is going to pwn them because he shelled out to buy all the best gear/weapons. Hey, how do these same worried people feel when I play my Diablo 3 over a T1 line, on a 60 inch monitor on a really comfortable ergonomic chair - do they expect Blizzard to STOP that as well??

having 25mb internet vs t1 line does not make any difference i do not think it will make 1% difference. and if you have a 60" tv, good, i am still happy to play on my 32" just fine.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 14, 2011 11:23:45 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 14, 2011 11:27:03 AM PDT
NeuroSplicer says:
No. Had Diablo 3 had a true Single-Player, MODing it could not possibly "hurt" anyone.
If the copy of the game we would pay for actually became ours, we could do whatever we wanted with it. But that is not the case, is it?

The reason that Activision/Blizzard's decided to prohibit MODs is the direct result of its GREED: it is the only way it can demand a piece of the loot-mining transactions.

Who would pay real money for virtual in-game equipment one could simply MOD in?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 14, 2011 11:26:11 AM PDT
Sudeley says:
yep 100% accurate.

hope when the crackers make a single player modification, they find a way to make tools to modify the files to make your own "BETTER" experience. I still play my mod over the vanilla d2...

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 14, 2011 11:54:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 14, 2011 11:56:17 AM PDT
NeuroSplicer says:
The more ridiculous the DRM, the more gamers will pirate a game rather than deal with such idiocy.

I do not condone illegal downloading but greedy, intrusive and potentially illegal DRM restrictions are what actually CAUSE piracy.

The most pirated games:

2008: SPORE (DRM: EA Download Manager)
2009: CALL OF DUTY - MODERN WARFARE 2 (DRM: STEAM)
2010: STARCRAFT (DRM: BattleNet)
2011: DIABLO 3 (DRM: BattleNet)???

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 15, 2011 6:22:07 AM PDT
Shanghaied says:
"People are worried that Rich_Boy_69 is going to pwn them because he shelled out to buy all the best gear/weapons. Hey, how do these same worried people feel when I play my Diablo 3 over a T1 line, on a 60 inch monitor on a really comfortable ergonomic chair - do they expect Blizzard to STOP that as well??"

This has to be one of the worst comparisons ever. If you think having "better" peripherals gives you an advantage analogous with better in game gear I have to seriously wonder if you've ever played an ARPG before.

The RMAH remains the one thing I dread about Diablo 3. It's the biggest endorsement of unfair play I've ever seen from Blizzard. At least the DRM schemes are universally applicable; the pay-to-play scheme gives an unfair advantage to some, compelling all to participate. It's absolutely wrong and disenfranchises players whether they choose to participate or not, and I'm furious about this.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2011 1:16:59 AM PDT
"I do not condone illegal downloading but greedy, intrusive and potentially illegal DRM restrictions are what actually CAUSE piracy.

The most pirated games:

2008: SPORE (DRM: EA Download Manager)
2009: CALL OF DUTY - MODERN WARFARE 2 (DRM: STEAM)
2010: STARCRAFT (DRM: BattleNet)
2011: DIABLO 3 (DRM: BattleNet)???"

Then why was there piracy before Steam or other forms of online DRM? I'm sorry, but that list of games proves nothing. Spore was an extremely hyped game from a very famous developer, and Modern Warfare 2 and StarCraft 2 were both highly anticipated sequels to wildly popular games. The levels of piracy those games saw probably had more to do with the fact that they were also some of the most successful PC games during those years, as well. MW2 was not the only game to require Steam in 2009, so that argument is completely invalid. What about 2010? The same year that Assassin's Creed 2, The Settlers 7: Paths to a Kingdom, Silent Hunter V: Battle of the Atlantic, and Command & Conquer 4 all came out. All four of those games required constant internet connections while playing; StarCraft 2, while some functionality is lost, can still be played without being online. Why were none of those games the most pirated of 2010?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2011 2:00:00 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 20, 2011 2:00:41 AM PDT
NeuroSplicer says:
The moment the epic poems of Gilgamesh and the Iliad were first recited, some of the audience repeated the gist of it to family and friends.

All throughout history, almost every copy of a book ever sold to one person ended up been read by many more.

There are many degrees and shades of what you describe as "piracy", from inevitable sharing between a small circle of friends and relatives to outright copyright infringement by posting a torrent of a cracked or ripped game online (guess who did the later, besides warez groups: the Dark Prince of DRM himself, StarFORCE! - allegedly to punish a publisher who stopped using it).

Having said that, only a biased man would claim that any form of DRM schemes ever put a dent to piracy. One only has to Google the name of a popular game and hundreds if not thousands of available torrents will pop up. There simply no way to prevent piracy any more than preventing gravity. And here is the kicker: the gaming industry knows this.

So what do they do? They try to make up the sales they claim to have missed due to piracy (although a very tiny percentage of the pirates would ever pay for a game) by squeezing their own paying customers.

BioShock came with SecuROM and OnLine Authentication (both bypassed within hours by pirates). Now, how do Limited Activations prevent piracy? They do not. Limited Activations (as with Starcraft's II one-person-per-copy policy) are only there to force legitimate, paying customers to pay for their game again and again. That is why, after all these years, 2K has not removed the Activations Limit on BioShock.

For the record, STARCRAFT II is a competitive RTS. It may be possible to play it offline but the player earns neither experience points nor achievements. So they made sure to make the offline single player pretty pointless, didn't they?

As to what could curb piracy: respect your customers and price your product reasonably.
Check the forum threads on The Witcher II, look how many people bought more than one copy from a company that removed every trace of its DRM when it caused activation problems and its customers complained.
The original Sacred was a fun hack-&-slash RPG that sold well because of its friendly DRM and its reasonable price. In contrast, its much anticipated sequel bombed because all the graphical eye-candy in the world will not make up for an over-DRMed hassle.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2011 3:24:18 AM PDT
"The moment the epic poems of Gilgamesh and the Iliad were first recited, some of the audience repeated the gist of it to family and friends. All throughout history, almost every copy of a book ever sold to one person ended up been read by many more. There are many degrees and shades of what you describe as "piracy", from inevitable sharing between a small circle of friends and relatives to outright copyright infringement by posting a torrent of a cracked or ripped game online (guess who did the later, besides warez groups: the Dark Prince of DRM himself, StarFORCE! - allegedly to punish a publisher who stopped using it)."

What are you talking about? You know full well what is meant by "piracy" here, and you know that no one here is claiming that sharing a game is the same as pirating a game. You are an intelligent man. Don't damage your own arguments by reducing them to the point of absurdity.

"Having said that, only a biased man would claim that any form of DRM schemes ever put a dent to piracy. One only has to Google the name of a popular game and hundreds if not thousands of available torrents will pop up. There simply no way to prevent piracy any more than preventing gravity. And here is the kicker: the gaming industry knows this. So what do they do? They try to make up the sales they claim to have missed due to piracy (although a very tiny percentage of the pirates would ever pay for a game) by squeezing their own paying customers."

Ubisoft seems to claim that their DRM on recent PC games has lowered piracy rates for those games, but I don't think they have actually backed that up with numbers and facts, so I hardly believe them. At any rate, no one here is making the claim that DRM actually stops pirates. However, you are making the claim that the type of DRM can be directly linked to the number of pirated copies of a game, and that simply is not true, as I have demonstrated by listing several games that had worse DRM than StarCraft 2.

"BioShock came with SecuROM and OnLine Authentication (both bypassed within hours by pirates). Now, how do Limited Activations prevent piracy? They do not. Limited Activations (as with Starcraft's II one-person-per-copy policy) are only there to force legitimate, paying customers to pay for their game again and again. That is why, after all these years, 2K has not removed the Activations Limit on BioShock."

Again, no one here is claiming that limited activations prevent piracy. I feel like you are not responding to me, but simple making general points--some of which I happen to agree with.

"For the record, STARCRAFT II is a competitive RTS. It may be possible to play it offline but the player earns neither experience points nor achievements. So they made sure to make the offline single player pretty pointless, didn't they?"

That is not relevant. StarCraft 2 single player can be played offline--period. Those other games I listed, at the times they were released, could not. Yet none of those games were as pirated as--or as successful on the PC as--StarCraft 2. So what does it look like has more to do with the piracy numbers of a game? The game's popularity itself, or the game's DRM? If you want to claim that offline single player is pointless because it does not affect a person's multiplayer status, then why bother complaining about the online requirement at all? Why should anyone care that Blizzard is selling StarCraft 2 as three separate campaigns, since the single player is pointless?

"As to what could curb piracy: respect your customers and price your product reasonably. Check the forum threads on The Witcher II, look how many people bought more than one copy from a company that removed every trace of its DRM when it caused activation problems and its customers complained. The original Sacred was a fun hack-&-slash RPG that sold well because of its friendly DRM and its reasonable price. In contrast, its much anticipated sequel bombed because all the graphical eye-candy in the world will not make up for an over-DRMed hassle."

It seems Sacred 2 did not do well on either consoles or the PC, and the long development time for that game forced the developer into bankruptcy. It was also reportedly filled with bugs and, according to your own review, was completely uninspired and mediocre, regardless of the DRM. So blaming the DRM for a game doing poorly is not necessarily the whole story. In some cases it may certainly be a part of the reason, but when a game like StarCraft 2 or Spore sells millions of copies DESPITE their DRM, it becomes necessary to look at other factors that might influence a game's success or failure.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 36 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Diablo III - PC/Mac forum
Participants:  79
Total posts:  889
Initial post:  Aug 13, 2011
Latest post:  Mar 26, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Diablo III - PC/Mac
Diablo III - PC/Mac by Blizzard Entertainment (Mac OS X Intel, Windows 7 / Vista / XP)
2.5 out of 5 stars (3,829)