Last week’s rough launch of Diablo III neatly illustrated the biggest problem with the game’s ‘always-on’ internet requirement. It was a reminder that consumers have lost a portion of their ownership of the game, that we no longer have complete control even over whether or not our game will start.
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.
















QQ more babies.
None of the benefits you talk about require 'always online' to work. Diablo 2 had the same feel.
4 out of 5 nights and 9pm servers hve gone down for maintenance for an hour. That's an hour of primetime where I can't play due to this 'always online' BS. I'm never going to spend real money on their auction house, I dont' care about the item auction house, all I want to do is play the game with my GF who is sitting next to me without lag or servers shutting down in the middle of peak play time.
Why Can't I Do That?!?!?!?
The only option that did was closed battle.net and the majority of users had single player accounts went online saw it was full of hackers (and you can't use your char on any PC) found out about closed make a character and that's were the true D2 players stayed which is what Blizzard agreed was how it was meant to be played (as evident with D3). If you didn't play closed Battle.net your experience was really limited and didn't have races to 99 or have gear worth money.
I'm guessing Activision/Blizzard PR lackeys leaned pretty hard on Kotaku for this one.
Title contradicts the content. Even the content is self-contradictory, as others have pointed out. Just going to repeat it here again:
“When a game takes away our ability to meta-manipulate, it feels alive in a way that most games do not.”
This is in no way an intrinsic benefit of playing online. You even said so! But then you justify your whole article with the following line, which was -not- justified:
“There’s something uniquely exciting that happens when you play a game on someone else’s servers.”
[Not to mention the actual article title!]
So no, Kirk Hamilton, no. Stop validating Blizzard’s approach which fundamentally erodes gamers’ rights and abilities to play games we paid for on our own terms. That, or actually justify yourself, don’t just say “It feels kinda nice somehow” and attribute it to one of the worst approaches at DRM in the past 30 years.
If it were only 400-500 lag. A week after launch and Ive played probly 4 hours (not for lack of trying) 400-500 ping is the best ive yet to have atlest its playable then but more often than not im finding that ill log on and cant get below 2000 not matter how easy the setting at that point the game hardly responds it just randomly leaps from whatever I think I was doing to something else every 40 seconds or so.
Seems like a great game but its almost unplayable im jelous of you whiny fucks saying omg I cant beat diablo on nightmare there almost a half second of lag, I've got a good computer with a decent connection and im lucky if i get a ping of 500 atleast the game sort of plays then
Didn't the whole 'you can't undo your actions' apply to Diablo 2 as well?
You couldn't just save/load the game every time you did something. You could only Save and Exit.
But that game still managed to have an offline single player and LAN...
Blizzard's decision to make this totally online has caused me and many of my friends to pull our interests out of their games. Many people still live in rural areas without internet access you blizzard idiots. And its a shame really because we've spent a lot of money on blizzard in the past...NO MORE
here is the real story that will relieve doutbs about the videowhy there is some content excluded from diablo 1 though it appears in the video.the original game is inspired from dante's inferno, story wise. a knight steps through the gates of hell, traveling every level of hell to save his beloved. a heavy christian symbolism was present in the game. yet this was cut as the studio merged with blizzard and took the name Blizzard North, policies of the company enforced of removal of religious