Diablo 4 started strong out of the gate -- my wife and I enjoyed it thoroughly for the first couple of weeks -- but the end game and the hunt for new items have been disappointing. I believe the problem stems from D4's rigid and boring itemization. There needs to be a lot more class-agnostic items like D2, which brings about some cool experimentation and wacky builds. If not, they need to add more variety to the drops because the class aspects are essentially a recycle of some of D3's builds. Based on the patch notes and malignant heart lists in Season 1, it seems more of the same old. But, we will see.
@olddadgamer: You are 100% correct that these underground servers will never quite capture the games in its original form, the available tools and tech, its time, the zeitgeist, and the generation and culture that experienced them. And, it is quite a shame that we can never show new generations what that lightning in the bottle was truly like.
Nevertheless, I still think it's still worth preserving for archival purposes. I can imagine curators and or museum guides walking kids through old games, showing them what it was like to play games that had characters made up of 300 polygons tops. Curator: "Can anybody guess what that object is?" Kids: "A rectangle? A square?" Curator: "No, that's Cloud from Final Fantasy 7."
@Zombie8814: I agree. While I get some games like MMOs can only be online, there's really no reason why Overwatch cannot be played offline locally with split screen or even with bots or direct connect. There's really no reason Diablo 4 did not include an offline mode like Diablo 1 and 2 had. Even on the FPS front, games like Vermintide 2 or Battlefield 2042 are online only, which is baffling and toxic for the consumer end, but it's probably lucrative on the business side.
I will always be for underground servers to preserve old games that were online-only, especially long after the game is off the market. This should not be a controversial take. It took an underground server like Nostralius to force Blizzard to pay attention to preserving Vanilla WoW aka Classic.
Second, I believe that gamers should push back against the oversaturation of live service games without an offline mode. Not every game needs to be a live service game. Publishers forcing developers to create a live service platform out of a game is creatively bankrupting the industry.
Starfield is currently #1 on my personal wishlist. That being said, I am going to wait for the reviews since Todd Howard has grown to be an unreliable hype man. Fingers crossed nevertheless.
Celebrating a trillion dollar company buying a multi-billion dollar company has always been a bit strange to me, but console wars will bring forth such fervor and fandom. When all of this subsides though, I hope gamers remember that none of these giant corporations have our backs, be it Sony, Tencent, Microsoft, Blizzard, EA, Ubisoft, Nintendo, Square Enix, Take Two, Embracer, etc. And, only we can continue to keep them honest with criticisms and pushbacks.
With that said, if this succeeds (as it most likely will) I hope Microsoft does the right thing and make positive changes to Activision-Blizzard-King, not just to its IPs, but to its work environment.
@laurenriley3332: Yeah, I am acutely aware Sony closed Japan Studio and blamed the recent under-performance of its titles. But, that is an indication of Sony's shift to a Western focus more than anything else despite Sony's denial of such.
Japan Studio has produced many hits (mostly in the PS1 and PS2 era) along with many commercial disappointments, but the advantages of keeping Japan Studio always outweighed the flops. According to Shohei Yoshida, Japan Studio operated on a tight budget for personal projects and acted as a support team for other Sony developers (e.g. Sucker Punch for Ghost of Tsushima). Shohei believed that central to Japan Studio's value is the fact that it was an incubator to find new Japanese talents and new ideas for the Sony brand, spawning sub-development teams like Team Ico.
In addition, Japan Studio acted as an important liaison for third-party collaboration in Japan and Asia. Third-party Japanese developers that ink a Sony publishing deal often go through the diplomacy of Japan Studio. Case in point: Patapon, Bleach, Rain, White Knight Chronicles, etc. were co-developed by Japan Studio. And, it was Japan Studio that approached FromSoftware to co-create Bloodborne.
So, yes, while Japan Studio has had many flops, it was one of the most important assets PlayStation had in Japan and greater Asia. And, these flops were not an issue for a long time because of the part the developer played in the region. But, as PlayStation shifted towards a Western focus, having that Japanese liaison and Japanese talent incubation mattered less. To PlayStation, Japan Studio no longer outweighed the cost of its flops. PlayStation wanted global hits over local Japanese hits with crossover appeal.
With all that said, whether you believe the Japanese developers or what Jim Ryan is saying is behind Japan Studio's closure, the point is: losing this development team was a tough one for our industry.
This is why I think Sony and Xbox should make more medium-level budget titles alongside their triple-A ones. Sony's closure of Japan Studio was devastating for this form. This studio brought us Puppeteer, which was one of the most visually arresting title of the PS3/360 era. I really miss games like this. With the acquisition of Bethesda / Zenimax, I hope Microsoft does not close Tango Gameworks, which recently pushed out spectacular experiences like Hi-Fi Rush and the underrated Ghostwire: Tokyo.
USDevilDog's comments