Blizzard's decision to make Diablo III online all the time seems like a bad idea.  I feel sorry for the Diablo fans who don't have a good internet connection or one at all.

Well, I don't like it on principle but if there's any company I trust its servers and support will be there for years to come, if not forever, it's Blizzard. They aren't exactly Ubisoft or EA. They released updates for Diablo II in the last year ffs. On the other hand, I never really cared for the multiplayer in Diablo II. If anything it ruined the game for me as some dude who decided to "help" me run me through the whole campaign in like, 30 minutes or so, and I'm not one to constantly replay the same game over and over or min max my characters to the absolute limit so I just got bored. I had a lot more fun slowly making progress by myself in the single player mode prior to that. Many other people obviously also enjoy single player hack and slash games as the sales of Torchlight among others have shown, even if a ton of them would prefer to have both (and some also get totally obsessed with the multiplayer, hence why Diablo II is still alive and well). So yeah, it's gonna suck for me to have to rely on internet accessibility just to play it single player. Or even to rely on Blizzard's availability (maintainance and what not) just to play it with a friend or two, in Diablo II (or was it Warcraft II?) and other such games I believe you could just connect to each other via IP without having to go through Battle.net. Their excuses aren't cutting it either. If there's risk of compromise in the game's economy (lolz, economy in a loot whore game, as if I'll really care to use the auction halls instead of get loot the good old fashioned way, via boss drops, I barely ever used the auction hall in WoW even) just make the single player characters (or just the items they acquired in single player) completely separate and unable to be imported (or just traded) into multiplayer. The same goes for mods. It doesn't even make sense they liken mods to security compromises. Do they mean Starcraft II is more unsafe? Of course it isn't. Mods are almost as if you're running a different game, you can't mess with people who are playing vanilla. It would have been great to be able to get custom campaigns by fans, or full gameplay conversions (turn based Diablo anyone?). So yeah, they just wanna sell DLC. Or maybe pimp Starcraft II as the game you need to mod their engine. Which I don't like either. So yeah, it's all just stupid excuses, tell us the truth (DRM, DLC) or just shut the fuck up about it, I don't like being called stupid like that...

Probably just another way to battle piracy.

Important Rage info PS3 fans:

5. Not all versions are (currently) equal


Bit of an unfortunate one, this, but I felt the need to point it out. Obviously right now the PC version of Rage is a visual stunner. And the 360 version isn't far behind. It loses a bit of the crisp, sharp detail and a little of the richness of the PC version (at least on the set-up we had in the room. Your mileage may vary), but unless you're running the two side-by-side, it's nothing you're going to notice. And unless you're very rich and a bit mad, you're not going to be running them side-by-side. The PS3 version though, which is the one I played, was a bit rough. The game ran smoothly, and was a rollicking old good time, but was plagued with texture pop-in on a near-constant basis.

Obviously this was unfinished preview code I was playing, and is currently being bug-checked before the finalised version is sent, so things may well be fine by the time Rage releases in October. But when you're waiting a second or two for environmental textures to properly load in their full detail almost every time your turn around in an FPS, it does become distracting. Particularly when you can see two other versions running right next to you with no comparable problems. Maybe it's to do with Blu-ray's notoriously slow data streaming having trouble with the new mega-texture technology that makes Rage so beautiful

Iga_Bobovic said:

Your original comment was

aspro said:

"Pretty average" is the way to describe it, even at the time.

And then you explained average.

Aspro said:

An average game to me is one that breaks no new ground. It does nothing to distinguish itself. A game that is competant, and worth the money paid for it, but not worth recommending.

There is were the problem lies. Average it itself does not mean anything. Some would say that an average game is a good game seeing as the metacritic average of all games is around 70%. Others might think an average game is not good or bad. Or the average game is crap and so on.

What is an average secretary, or an average student? An unremarkble student/secretary? What if all the students are remarkble and weird, would that mean that an average student is remarkable?Solving this is easy, to using average to decribe things. Or in your case

aspro said:

" competent but unremarkable" is the way to describe it, even at the time.

Now don't get me started on art.

Didn't we establish that you are using "average" as a noun and I am using it as an adjective a few pages ago?  Average does mean something, that's why it has a dictionary definition of "not out of the ordinary : common <the average person>".

robio said:

Have they announced a released date or at least an approximate release date for Mario Kart 7?  At this point that's really the one and only game on the 3DS that I'm super interested in playing.

"Holiday"