Really stupid things that people have said about Modded MC(Off topicness makes moderators tired)

[NJM1564]

Wich is also why Diablo III needs always online. The problem here is the massive succes of diablo II and the extreme amount of botting/cheating/item selling and other shinanigans that went on there.

Um those are called mods. And should be perfectly all right in single player mode.

 

[Celestialphoenix]

Oddly enough to need to be online to play online multiplayer stuff- THERE'S your authentication.

If the singleplayer/offline mode is an entirely separate part of the game then it won't matter if you're online or not- the only difference is the total amount of play time/experience which equates to player skill not cheating.
If the singleplayer mode has integration into the online/multiplayer game, then you could force online if the player wants to use that integration; otherwise playing offline will result in a separate mode which won't affect the main game.

 

[TomeWyrm]

No, destiny is NOT an MMO. It's a quasi-MMO shooter RPG mess. They took mechanics from too many genres and mixed them in bad ways without understanding why those genres have these mechanics in the first place.

I'm right there with you, if it's multiplayer, then sure. You have to be online ANYWAY, so an always-on DRM FOR MULTIPLAYER isn't a problem. But Destiny's entire non-PvP and non-Raid can be done solo (all of my friends and I have soloed the strikes without deaths before when the matchmaker can't find anyone). Why do I need live to do what is obviously single player content with some matchmaking fluid quasi-mmo quasi-matchmaking mechanic thrown on top?

Diablo III was not a multiplayer game either. If you want to avoid the dupe/bot/item crap... then they already DID. With the real money auction house fiasco. If you don't want that, only allow trading from ladder/alwayson/online-only characters. If they go offline, they can't trade anymore. Wow, that was easy and now I can enjoy my game with my flaky connection!

Sure, you hardly notice the always on DRM... because you actually have a stable connection and like playing PvP (The interweaving of which into PvE content affecting balance for the both in a negative manner is something I've ranted about before and don't feel like giving another dissertation with examples on the subject today). What about the hundreds of thousands of people that aren't guaranteed a stable connection? What about the people that can only play on dial-up, or using wireless, or satellite, or their router can only be placed on the opposite side of the house so they get a bad signal and it's a rental so they can't run cables through the wall and they don't have the spare money to devote for the (frankly even worse) Ethernet over power line adapters and trip over cords ran through their house all the time so that's not an option either?

There are times and places for always-on DRM. Games with a large amount of single player content are NOT IT. Not everyone likes playing against (let alone WITH) other random human beings online. Those lobbies are full of some of the worst examples of humanity I have ever seen. It's why I play shooters muted. Sure I don't get all the audio cues... but I also don't have the urge to punch people in the face over the internet anymore, and that's a tradeoff I'm willing to put up with.

 

[Skyqula]

Diablo III has a whole wooping 10h of single player content, for a 60e game thats terrible. Its not even a good story at it. If you want an offline singleplayer game there are tons out there that are better in just about every way. Diablo III is simply not one of them (even more so if you cant afford a network wire, dont buy DIII). Its a coöp game, always was. All of its endgame content is done best in coöp.

And sooner or later those people playing singleplayer want to try out multiplayer, and suddenly have to make a new character. Wich makes it fall into the bad experience chatagory.

Um those are called mods. And should be perfectly all right in single player mode.

No, they where not mods. They where hacks and all other kinds of shinanigans. IE: Drop hack, someone joins your game, your screen freeze and all your gear starts dropping on the ground. Just imagine of one of those actually made it into a game at this date. Or those tools that allowed you to make items, and oh look, there is a way to get singleplayer characters into ladder games! Tada, ladder ruïned. The only way to prevent these kinds of things is with always online.

 

[NJM1564]

And sooner or later those people playing singleplayer want to try out multiplayer, and suddenly have to make a new character. Wich makes it fall into the bad experience chatagory.

No, they where not mods. They where hacks and all other kinds of shinanigans. IE: Drop hack, someone joins your game,

Hacks are still technically mods. And I said it was only OK for single player.

 

[TomeWyrm]

Destiny has easily under 8 hours of content that isn't PvP or repeated content (grinding). Portal 2 was in the neighborhood of that too from what I recall. Antichamber is amazingly short, it makes the original portal look quite lengthy in comparison. Length of game has little to do with what the game is worth. That is also an incredibly personal decision.

I could post similar things about your thoughts on the quality of the story, the relative worth/enjoyment of other games, and that the endgame content is "best" done in co-op play. It's all blatantly opinion.

Why should I be forced to play online if I don't want to? If I enjoy playing D3 for the story (which I actually thought was pretty good, myself. Not the best ever, but certainly not BAD), and wish to do so in an area without internet service... why shouldn't I be able to? I bought the game after all, and I if I don't like playing with other people, why should I be forced to play in an online mode?

Diablo II actually had a good method for doing the whole "no cheat" for multiplayer thing. You had Ladder and non-ladder. Ladder characters could not be played offline, and IIRC were stored on Blizzard servers. That was what you played if you wanted "clean" gameplay. If you wanted to play with the same character you single player-ed with, you used the "open" lobby. Dungeon Defenders does the same thing. It works amazingly and doesn't require always-on DRM.

 

[Skyqula]

Why should I be forced to play online if I don't want to?

Then dont buy the game, it was very clear from the get go that it always needs an internet connection. It even says so on the box/store page.

and I if I don't like playing with other people, why should I be forced to play in an online mode?

Diablo II actually had a good method for doing the whole "no cheat" for multiplayer thing. You had Ladder and non-ladder. Ladder characters could not be played offline, and IIRC were stored on Blizzard servers. That was what you played if you wanted "clean" gameplay. If you wanted to play with the same character you single player-ed with, you used the "open" lobby. Dungeon Defenders does the same thing. It works amazingly and doesn't require always-on DRM.

Thats the entire point. It was not a good method because it did not work. Methods where found to get non ladder characters into ladder games and copy items over. Aswell as methods to dupe items. The only way to stay ahead is with always online. Considering the game was build as a coöp experience the only way to assure a good experience is with always online. No critical files on the players computers, files that can be decompiled and reveal potential leaks. No need to roll out a patch to fix an issue when it arises, just hotfix it.

And sure, for small games like dungeon defenders seperating singleplayer and multiplayer characters might work. But your still telling people: Nope! Start over! Thats a bad experience you should try to avoid. Besides, Diablo II showed its not just another game by another company. As a result, Diablo III was defenitly not going to be a small game. Heck, annything Blizzard makes is not going to be a small game. There will be people trying to make a profit and do annything they can to do so. As such, Blizzard is doing the right thing by keeping always online to make sure they can be ontop of anny issue ASAP. Diablo III is no exception, heck, considering Diablo II's and WoW's history this is especially needed for Diablo III.

 

[Reika]

Portal 2 was in the neighborhood of [under 8 hours of content that isn't PvP or repeated content] too from what I recall.

To be fair, even that is impressive for something that is pure storyline. While I would certainly like the singleplayer game to have lasted longer (Portal 2 is minute-for-minute the best game I have ever played), I doubt you could add that much story without either massively bogging it down or taking ten years to develop.

 

[T10a]

To be fair, even that is impressive for something that is pure storyline. While I would certainly like the singleplayer game to have lasted longer (Portal 2 is minute-for-minute the best game I have ever played), I doubt you could add that much story without either massively bogging it down or taking ten years to develop.

*Insert Half-Life 2: Episode 3 joke here*

 

[LivingAngryCheese]

<insert this thread derailed is meme here>

 

[ThomazM]

To be fair, even that is impressive for something that is pure storyline. While I would certainly like the singleplayer game to have lasted longer (Portal 2 is minute-for-minute the best game I have ever played), I doubt you could add that much story without either massively bogging it down or taking ten years to develop.

@Gideonseymour

 

[buggirlexpres]

To be fair, even that is impressive for something that is pure storyline. While I would certainly like the singleplayer game to have lasted longer (Portal 2 is minute-for-minute the best game I have ever played), I doubt you could add that much story without either massively bogging it down or taking ten years to develop.

You should play Running Red.

Like, really, play Running Red. I put most of my effort on it into the story.
Same goes for Running Red 2, and I'm going beyond with that. I'm using several mods designed specifically to tell story, such as Lore Expansion, however, RR2 isn't quite ready for public play yet, there's only an Alpha version.

 

[TomeWyrm]

Then dont buy the game, it was very clear from the get go that it always needs an internet connection. It even says so on the box/store page.

I'm not saying that I missed that it was always on, I'm saying it never should have been made always on in the first place. Saying that logically presupposes that I know that the game requires an always-on connection.

I played the entire D3 pre-expansion story by myself and other than a few bosses (bless that fallen angel to a pristine heaven. I swear the penultimate boss is 50 times worse than the big D-man himself.) I had no issues with it. I experienced the story myself, and didn't have to work my schedule around my friends or hook up with random chucklenuts from the internet. So I don't particularly care if YOU think it's a multiplayer-only game. I am a living example (along with, you know, the GAME ITSELF SAYING SO) that Diablo 3 had a single player campaign that you could additionally co-op. Just like Diablo 2... imagine that!

In any case, pick Assassin's Creed... IV? No... The one with Connor as the ancestor... III? Blah I quit numbering them a long time ago what with 5 different "2"s. Why did I need to be online when there is no multiplayer for campaign mode?

Or another game with a story/campaign that is possible to play single player that has or had an always-on DRM.

Thats the entire point. It was not a good method because it did not work. Methods where found to get non ladder characters into ladder games and copy items over. Aswell as methods to dupe items. The only way to stay ahead is with always online. Considering the game was build as a coöp experience the only way to assure a good experience is with always online. No critical files on the players computers, files that can be decompiled and reveal potential leaks. No need to roll out a patch to fix an issue when it arises, just hotfix it.

No, it was a good method, someone just figured out how to break it. Just because people know how to pick locks doesn't mean deadbolts are useless on your front door. Neither does figuring out glitches in the BASE GAME mean that they are somehow magically able to be fixed in always-on multiplayer. Because everything that didn't involve hacking the client (Which can be done in Massively Multiplayer Online RolePlaying Games like World of Warcraft, so quit with the strawman of "always on means no hacks". Hell not even consoles are immune to hacks and bots; just more resistant) could also be done singleplayer.

And sure, for small games like dungeon defenders seperating singleplayer and multiplayer characters might work. But your still telling people: Nope! Start over! Thats a bad experience you should try to avoid. Besides, Diablo II showed its not just another game by another company. As a result, Diablo III was defenitly not going to be a small game. Heck, annything Blizzard makes is not going to be a small game. There will be people trying to make a profit and do annything they can to do so. As such, Blizzard is doing the right thing by keeping always online to make sure they can be ontop of anny issue ASAP. Diablo III is no exception, heck, considering Diablo II's and WoW's history this is especially needed for Diablo III.

No you are not saying "LAWL START OVERZ". You are saying "If you value 'consistency' and 'fair play' then use this ranked mode. If you don't mind cheats, and wish to be able to import your characters from single player, use this 'open' mode. If you want fair play and to import a character you already have, well then sorry... it breaks the trust in the fairness of ladder if you can transfer a singleplayer character where you hold the files, and hence they can become compromised.

If you play on single player and open lobbies/ladders a lot, and then suddenly wish to switch to the ranked ladders, then yes you will be forced to start over... but then everyone had to start anew on Ladder, so it's fair, helps maintain the integrity and fairness of the process, and the all-mighty "balance" will be slightly less steamrolled over this time

 

[T10a]

'Nuff said

 

[Mattasdqwe]

Rename to 'Insightful things people have said about games other than Minecraft'

 

[Esheon]

More detailing, but the mention of Assassin's Creed reminded me of the hidden DRM in AC1... Every time I got a kill (and sometimes just randomly), my screen would lock up for 10-30 seconds. My computer back then wasn't the greatest, but it was slightly better than the minimum specs. I searched all over the internet, tried different video settings, worked on it for several days... until I found a torrent file with instructions to unplug the Ethernet cable or block the game from connecting to the internet.

My initial response was a big WTF. Single-player game, nothing on the box about an internet connection, why would it matter? I unplugged the Ethernet cable and the game was smooth as silk. Then I set my firewall to deny connection to AC, still smooth. Apparently it sent a tagged screenshot (with a fairly big file size) to the company on every kill, and if the game wasn't registered (or if there were 2 simultaneous instances) it would also lock it up until you registered. However, if it didn't have a connection it just skipped that part.

 

[1SDAN]

More detailing, but the mention of Assassin's Creed reminded me of the hidden DRM in AC1... Every time I got a kill (and sometimes just randomly), my screen would lock up for 10-30 seconds. My computer back then wasn't the greatest, but it was slightly better than the minimum specs. I searched all over the internet, tried different video settings, worked on it for several days... until I found a torrent file with instructions to unplug the Ethernet cable or block the game from connecting to the internet.

My initial response was a big WTF. Single-player game, nothing on the box about an internet connection, why would it matter? I unplugged the Ethernet cable and the game was smooth as silk. Then I set my firewall to deny connection to AC, still smooth. Apparently it sent a tagged screenshot (with a fairly big file size) to the company on every kill, and if the game wasn't registered (or if there were 2 simultaneous instances) it would also lock it up until you registered. However, if it didn't have a connection it just skipped that part.

eye dum'd eaveen...

 

[TomeWyrm]

And stuff like that is why I'm against a lot of DRM. It should NEVER EVER be worse for your legitimate customers/consumers than it is for the pirates. Ever. For any reason. Period. Hacks and other third party modifications not withstanding.

You know, I should turn notifications off for this one so I quit helping derail the thread...

/apologize
/leave Thread

 

[LivingAngryCheese]

"Mods are cheating"
My friend

 

[Strikingwolf]

"Mods are cheating"
My friend

This happens to much