Bleck

Yes, but there are a few fundamental things that D3 does different than most dungeon crawlers (including its predecessor) that are enough to spoil the whole thing for me. Some of them you already named (skills that are worthless, no pvp, no incentive to play the postgame beyond itemgrind), but the biggest thing for me was the large majority of the maps not being randomly generated. Unlike in Diablo 2 or, say, The Binding of Isaac, this means that playing through the game over and over involves playing the exact same levels over and over. The randomly generated dungeons and areas helped to disguise how much of a mouse wheel it was by forcing you to actually use your brain to navigate new areas. Diablo 3's static areas literally had me falling asleep when I tried Nightmare, because there was nothing new to see or do except hope for better equipment. You're right that the basic idea of these sort of games is level up, find gear, and kill monsters, but Diablo 3 managed to make all three of these things not rewarding. Leveling up to 60 is pointless because of the nonexistent post-game content, finding gear is pointless because the gear doesn't serve any purpose (again, no post-game), and killing monsters is pointless because half of the skills that the characters have are worthless and half of them don't really involve any strategy or forethought at all; I've played through the game as a Demon Hunter and a Monk so far, and the most useful skills on both of those characters were the ones that let me hold down RMB and watch all the monsters slowly die. Flashy, yes, but not really all that entertaining when I could be playing something like The Binding of Isaac instead. Imagine if Halo 4 came out, had a cool, fun little single-player deal, and then the multiplayer/post-game content was Master Chief holding a gun in a blank, featureless space and shooting at a generic Halo enemy forever. You can't move, or jump, or do anything but shoot at this enemy. I'm not complaining about the shooting, in this case - I'm complaining that there's nothing else. Every genre can be stripped down to a specific concept, yeah, but there are no good video games that are just that concept out there, because they end up being bad video games. Like Diablo 3, a game where Blizzard expects you to grind for items for literally no other reason than to grind for items. I, for one, am tired of video game companies treating people like rats in an operant conditioning chamber.

Yeah, more or less.

All of those things sound good, but don't actually change any of the fundamental problems with the game.

Being short-range doesn't really matter when she's a melee character with a move that instantly teleports you to an enemy. The fact that it's a skillshot doesn't really mean anything when it's on a five second cooldown and is on a character who's going to be building bruiser items. ...which is why it's too low? Leona is a tank, a straight up CC machine, so her shield isn't really a big deal because it's not keeping her alive so that she can do ridiculous amounts of damage. And Sion is a joke. I don't think Diana is overpowered, per se, but she's definitely contributing to the slow power creep that has left a whole bunch of other characters in the dust.

Your opinions are bad and you should feel bad.

The thing about calling mia in chat is that it takes a second out of your time to tell somebody something that they could have known themselves if they watched their map - which they should be doing. If somebody chooses to call mias, good for them. They're a nice person. But it's a privilege, not a right; if you ever get mad at someone for not calling mias, you're an idiot. Also fuck Diana. The ratio on her Q is way too high, and the cooldown on her W is way too low.

Maybe if they released a finished product they wouldn't have had to worry about re-gaining the interest of players.

I've read in some other places that, if you care about the story, you shouldn't play Arena until you've beaten Persona 4 and Persona 3.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=87523729 I want this more than anything.

So wait. You don't like Evangelion because none of the characters are likeable, so you recommend Gundam Seed?

gimme twenty dollas gimme twenty dollas

This game made me poop my pants so hard that my sphincter pulled down the rest of my insides and pooped them out and now I'm inside out and slowly dying please help me I'm so scared

I can't emphasize this enough.

The prison in the movie was only referred to, metaphorically, as a pit. I have no idea why everyone's saying it's a/the Lazarus Pit.

I swear to fuck I'll fuckin' hunt down each and every person involved

The thing is, whether or not the Reapers were justified in doing what they were doing isn't really what the whole series is about until the final moments of the third game. Thematically, the origins and motives of the Reapers are not relevant; the story was never about understanding the villains so much as it was about defeating them. If we look at the ending in absolutist terms, not revealing the origins of the Reapers at all would have been a much better choice than attempting to explain them.

The Extended Cut made the ending go from 'the worst' to just 'bad'. It's still a nightmare thematically, structurally, scripturally and visually.

Did you miss the last twenty minutes of the movie? Where they reveal spoilers; that Bane wasn't the child born in the prison?

The derelict Reaper had enough function to continuously project a mass effect field that prevented it from falling into the nearby star. It wasn't really 'dead' in any sense. That being said, it's nonsensical to assume that the short time Shepard spent on it was enough to indoctrinate her, just as much as it is nonsensical to assume that the vaguely-defined 'Reaper core' that she retrieves is actually secretly a machine that broadcasts the indoctrination fields and that somehow none of the scientists noticed this while studying it intensively.

Probably for the same reason anyone has any accent; that's how they learned to speak. Also, that was a Caribbean accent.

You realize that almost every single time Bane is speaking, his dialogue is the focal point? You're not missing anything by focusing on what a character is saying during a scene where that character is saying something and nothing else is happening. It's also sort of irrational to imply that it's somehow impossible to both pay attention to a character's dialogue and also, at the same time, experience any other facet of the movie.

It takes extra effort to pay attention to what a character in the movie is saying during a movie?

Having to focus on what a character in the movie was saying took you out of the movie?

I write ambient music sometimes; Frost Heaven Below

Warning: a bit of spoilers, ahead. The problem with the hypothesis is that it assumes that machines work in a manner in which they do not - every machine functions in the capacity it was expressly designed to function. The indoctrination hypothesis hinges on the idea that being physically near Reapers, or Reaper technology, is what causes indoctrination; this is true, but not in the capacity that the hypothesis assumes, which is that Reapers themselves have some magical presence which causes indoctrination. The manner in which Reapers accomplish indoctrination is logically (and directly implied by the games) via machines/components of the Reapers with the express purpose of indoctrination, ie. devices that emit the electromagnetic field and ultrasound via which indoctrination is accomplished. Anyone who has ever worked with machines or computers knows that, like all tools, they only accomplish what they're specifically told to do; computers are, in a manner of speaking, dumb. The specific idea behind the indoctrination hypothesis is that the Thanix cannons used by the Normandy SR-2, being Reaper technology, are therefore capable of remotely indoctrinating Shepard - this is akin to saying that, for example, if you took apart a car and then used some of the components to build a makeshift mallet, you'd be able to ride the mallet around as if it were a car. For the hypothesis to make sense, the Turians who created the Thanix cannons would have had to specifically; A) build the machines that indoctrinated living beings (which is unlikely, given that they only recovered the weapons technology from Sovereign, and it stands to reason that indoctrination technology wasn't physically located within the outer weaponry) somehow incorporate these machines into the Thanix cannons without anyone knowing (again unlikely; various other engineers would have likely noted the supposedly superfluous machinery hidden in the cannons, examined it and further removed/disabled it) C) want to indoctrinate Shepard for some fuckin' reason (why would they do this) A smaller facet of the hypothesis assumes that EDI's body is somehow indoctrinating Shepard, but all three of the above points can more or less be applied to that line of thinking as well. Since none of that seems likely or rational, I think it's safe to assume that the indoctrination hypothesis is bullshit that somebody cooked up to try and explain Mass Effect 3's super shitty ending. And, I should point out, even if the indoctrination hypothesis is what the writers were trying to accomplish, it would still be a shitty ending in literally every single narrative capacity, except it would be even more irrational, nonsensical and ultimately unsatisfying than the big bag of trash that we actually got.