That’s as true this week as it was last week, but the more I play, the more I’ve found that there are also some things about Diablo III‘s always-on world that make it more vital, exciting and engaging.
Last night, I found myself in town doing a loot drop-off. I told my smith to strip a rare magical bow for parts. I didn’t need the bow — I’d already given my NPC companion a better one, so there was no reason to keep it around. When I hit the “salvage” button, a dialogue box popped up. Was I really sure I wanted to do this? It could not be undone.
I paused. Yes, I was sure I wanted to do this. There was no future for that bow — unique or no, it was basically junk. But I paused nonetheless, because this decision was permanent in a way that most video game decisions aren’t. If I changed my mind, I couldn’t just reload an old save and undo it. No takebacks.
That’s due to the the particular way that Diablo III operates – you can’t save a snapshot of the world and reload it at your pleasure. Whether you’re playing by yourself or with friends, you’re always connected to the servers, and even when you’re in the menus, life goes on around you. It’s Blizzard’s world; we just live in it.
This has proved irritating to a lot of people, myself included — I mostly want to play Diablo III single-player, so why can’t I just do that? Why do I have to connect to the internet to play this game? This isn’t how I’m used to playing video games!
I still think that the game would benefit from at least giving players the option to play the game in an entirely offline mode — you choose to make a hero an “offline hero” and you can never take that hero online. I’m no expert in the technical aspects of MMOs and server-based gaming, but it seems like it should be possible to keep single-player gamers and whatever weird gear and hacked loot they can come up with out of the shared servers.
But now that I’m partway through Diablo III‘s second act, I’m actually glad to be playing online. I don’t usually play with others (though thanks largely to Mike’s excellent review, I will), but all the same, I’m enjoying the feeling of being in a connected world that doesn’t reside on my computer. It makes my actions feel consequential — granted, they’re consequential in a small way, but all the same, each thing I do feels permanent. It lends the world an intangible credibility that feels exciting and new.
I’ve seen plenty of folks online complaining about Diablo III‘s lack of a traditional save-system. When it’s time to stop playing, you just sort of…stop. Your progress, gear and level is saved, but your location defaults back to the last checkpoint. The first few times this happens, it can be a bit galling — Wait, I was near the end of the dungeon! I have to do that again?
But the lack of proper saves also makes the game feel vital and alive. (And remember, Diablo II worked in much the same way). For a more recent touchstone, I’m reminded of nothing so much as Dark Souls, where the game’s constant auto-saving makes it impossible to undo mistakes. As a result, each action in Dark Souls feels immensely more vital than in, say, Skyrim.
When I play Skyrim, I’ll often quicksave before doing business in town or attempting to craft items — if I make a bad impulse decision or fail a dice-roll, I can always reload and try again. But at its core, this sort of save-game manipulation is a perversion of the game, isn’t it? It’s treated as common practice — I’d venture a guess that everyone who has played an RPG has at some point reloaded a saved game to undo mistakes (heck, we even advise on how to do it in our How to Play Video Games guide).
When a game takes away our ability to meta-manipulate, it feels alive in a way that most games do not. The compromise for all this vitality, however, is that we have to be willing to give up control over a game’s world. (Note: Not the same as requiring us to connect to Blizzard’s servers.) If we control the world, if it lives entirely by our rules on our hard drives. If that’s the case, it seems we wind up unable to keep ourselves from abusing that power. It’s a matter of preference — sometimes, I want to mod and tweak, to exert control over the world on my computer from outside the traditional bounds of the game-world. But other times, I’m finding that I like to give up control and try to succeed on someone else’s terms.
“But!” you may be saying, frantically gesticulating in the air, “This doesn’t excuse Blizzard from forcing us to play Diablo III online! You don’t have to play Dark Souls online, after all!” And that’s absolutely true — Diablo III could do all of this stuff, the constant auto-saving and the persistent world, in offline mode.
“And!” you continue, struggling to find the words to express your outrage, “You just said last week that the always-online thing is a big problem!” Yeah, I did, and I still think that. The internet requirement seems like unnecessary overkill, and I believe Blizzard should add a walled-off offline mode to the game for those who want it.
Then again, if Blizzard did add an offline mode, I’m not sure I would use it, even as I would welcome its presence. Something about the fact that I don’t have control over the world, and never will, makes it feel less “of my computer” and closer to “real.” There’s something uniquely exciting that happens when you play a game on someone else’s servers.
I’m sure this is old hat to MMO players, but as a mostly single-player guy, it feels fresh to me. I get the sense that Diablo III will push single-players like me to really experience server-based gaming for the first time, and that a lot of us may find that we have a taste for it.
It’s Blizzard’s world; we just live in it. But visiting another world can be pretty exciting.
So what happens when I want to play Diablo 3 in 8-10 years, just for a laugh, and Blizzard no longer exists, or was bought by someone else, or does not maintain their servers because it's not cost effective. I can't play MY game that I bought. I hope everyone can sue their arse off at that point.
And behold, Stockholm Syndrome begins to set in for poor Kirk.
This is incredibly condescending.
I like the part where Mobile Broadband users get to "enjoy" this experience. And by enjoy, I mean "suffer slow downloads, updates and horrendous latency across the board". Wheeee
I live in public housing and despite over a year of pleading I still have no internet access to my building so no Diablo 3 for me :-(
Hamilton, let me sum up everyone's response;
You're an idiot.
Kirk, u're an idiot. That is all.
The always-on component might give extra weight to the decisions you make, but utilising a quick-save feature has traditionally been the power the player selects to exert. The option is there. You are free to choose. A possible case of "absolute power" in where the game may show dominance by forcing the player down a path, but the player has the ultimate power of quicksave. A "safeword" so to speak...
However, to pontificate further, there is always another item that is superior not far away. To overbake an analysis, I'd say that Diablo is a wonderful commentary on how materialistic and disposable our society has become. Material possession are ultimately fleeting belongings we keep before something better comes along.
I remain unconvinced that battle.net adds anything worthwhile, by design or by accident.
I don't really care if decisions I make in a game is permanent. It doesn't make the game more fun. I like the ability to go back in time to make a different better choice. Real world sucks because we can't do that, so why would that make a game better?
All of the 'positives' posted are actually negatives. The ability to not load after mistakes or at your own leisure removes player choice, it only trivialises choices for players that are unable to control themselves. Fable 2 (or 3, I can't remeber which) made a big mistake with the one unique save per character as it forced players to live with accidents.
Hi Kirk,
Just to clairfy something about it being easy to simply make an 'offline' mode where all the hacked and weird weapons remain offline -
ALMOST ALL DATA IS STORED ON BLIZZARD SERVERS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN NOT REVERSE ENGINEER THE SERVER DATA.
This means things like monster data, loot generation, save files ECT - it's all on BLIZZARD's server. If they were to create an offline mode, they would have to give everyone access to these files. From then, it would be easy for hackers to reverse engineer the files in order to hack the multiplayer game. Not having an offline mode keeps the online mode hack free
You truly are stupid if you believe that 'hackers' aren't going to find a way around this eventually.
When they do, it will make all this fancy, shiny, expensive DRM completely worthless and useless
You're another one of those defensive newbs that don't realize this was already a featured mode in Diablo II, eh?
"Not having an offline mode keeps the online mode hack free"
Umm the game was hacked in beta to request the map and all sorts of other things.
The only thing a lack of offline mode does is delay the inevitable hacking.
As for creating an offline mode, you don't use the same data storage protocols as you do for the online method. If the format is different and their are key bits for offline items and key bits for online items. If you make it so that Offline characters can only interact with other offline characters and never those online.(Much in the same way Dungeon Defenders Works) If an item created from an offline mode asset pops up online it can be quashed instantly due to the instant differences.
Of course this means they would essentially have to remake the entire offline mode distinctly separate from the online one.
So... all the "benefits" can be had without the need to be always online... and yet always online is a good thing. Hmm.
I love the idea of Hardcore Mode, it tempts me to actually buy Diablo in spite of my general lack of interest in this sort of game, but I've got 0% interest in playing a game where I can die permanently due to lag or a crash. If I could play that on my computer and my computer only, then maybe. As it stands, "always on" means I'm not going to buy the game. I really don't understand why they have it, except as part of an Ubisoft style annoying DRM thing.
So because you can't stop yourself using quicksaving when it's available forced online is a good thing? Sounds like my mate... on the first point, he's not that flat out stupid to think that's a good argument for the second.
Games make people angry!
You have got to be kidding surely? Are you seriously suggesting that some perverse consequence of their control-freak decision justifies their choices? Kind of like, "Sure I murdered him and buried him in a shallow grave, but at least it got me outdoors for a bit!"
Please Kotaku AU, split from the US site. They drag the quality of your site down so, so much.
"Then again, if Blizzard did add an offline mode, I’m not sure I would use it, even as I would welcome its presence."
Unless you weren't online like I wasn't for a week at the end of June. Or lived in Perth on the most affordable DSL speed. Or couldn't log in thanks to always-scheduled maintenance.
With a little self control, you could play Diablo III offline with the exact same consequences - whether or not you quicksave is your choice. There is absolutely no benefit to players in having to be always online in single player on Diablo. Only detractors.
I wanted to call my wizard player Dickens. Had to change it to Dyckens. Why? Because Blizzard said so. Why do I still get hit by an enemy even after I've run 2 metres away from it in single player? Server lag. Why did my game abruptly end and boot me back to the town? My dodgy modem played up.
Good thing I got to try it out with a guest pass - I hadn't ever gotten into the Diablo series, and as fun as the actual gameplay is I will not be buying this game.
I think hamilton is clutching at straws here. I really don't see the upside to anything that's mentioned here. There should NOT be any articles defending blizzard's always online decision. It's bad enough we have consumers doing it, we don't need journalists doing it as well. The moment we give blizzard any hint of always online being a good thing is the moment we have lost. It is NOT a good thing, you can't justify it.
This comment has been deemed inappropriate and has been deleted.
Thanks. And you enjoy a world where you pay for the right to play a game when its convenient for the company. Enjoy this world that you were complicit in ushering in.
lol at the copypaste that defends blizzard from attacks that nobody was making.
Seriously, read the comments, and you will see that nothing of what you said was in the complaints.
Plus, with always online DRM, I think its a awesome idea, stops people moding, cracking the game and getting it for free. The only downside is the internet we have as a world, isn't good enough yet. It will be though. We have the national broadband initiative, amongst other things in the process, to try Nd improve our connection and speed. So, ffs, unless your trying to jack this game, and steal it. Then seriously what's your problem, diablo is an online game, not a singleplayer game. You can just chose to play by your self if you like. But most of these jurno's and reviewers, play this game on there own. Unaware enemies with 4 people in a game, are more then 4 times stronger, there is also more of them, more loot, more fun. This game has, repeat, has to be played online. Most people only played D2 online. We use to laugh at people who only played singleplayer, thy just had no idea. Hahhaah so sad.
BTW, nice read kirk, was really good to hear a positive spin on DRM. It was a good read as well, thank you for the article mate.
Good lord, what an enormous tosser you are. All the complaints that have been leveled at blizzard are justified. It doesn't matter HOW someone plays the game (sorry we're not all pros like you, some of us have jobs), we all paid the same money for it. I bet you only bought one copy, like everyone else. The way you play the game doesn't mean shit, son. What people are annoyed about (especially in australia) is that every time we want to play, the servers are down, or we keep getting disconnected. It's shockingly poor form on blizzards part.
Dont take it to the heart there Uncle Ruffs. I actually live in australia qld. I dont know what this has to do with my argument, but i bought two copies of the game, one for me and my friend. So Im not too sure what your point is mate? So your saying everyone should have to buy more the one copy ? get stuffed mate, your a wanker, why would you think that :S. Oh and by the way, Im currently employed as a underground horizontal driller, and still pro at diablo, so stick your shit&y boot licking 9-5 pencil pushing job right up your ass mate. Your points are sh!t, your augment is sh!t, you dont have a leg to stand on buddy. SOOOOOOO, sticky tape those testicile back on, and come back with somehting better. Put some effort in doll bludger. Im sick of paying your wage, alright?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5Mr5eCF2U
A driller you say? Makes sense. You clearly have trouble understanding what I wrote. Why don' t you try reading it again, maybe get a grown up to supervise you this time. Get back to me when you finally understand, mmkay champ?
Account security is still an issue.
Several folks I know have had their items and gold stolen by hackers. This wouldn't happen in optional-offline games.
Kotaku ladies and gentlemen, offering the worst" journalism" around.
You guys are the worst. Stupid contrarian articles that make no sense, just so you can get page views.
Jesus you guys might as well just work for marketing reps at game companies looking at the level of idiocy displayed in this article.
Man, the kool aid is strong with this game,
ZOMG ITS AMAZING THAT I CAN'T SAVE MY GAME!!!
SKYRIM SUCKS BECAUSE I KEEP SAVING AND GOING BACK!!!
DIABLO III IS THE BESTEST!!!
So Diablo is awesome because it forces you not to demonstrate how weak your willpower is?
The problem isn't with games, the problem is with you. If you demand 'vitality' just don't re-load your saves, chump.