>30 hour games are short now days?

Well, if you're still used to playing games The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Although, I can think of other games I've played recently that lasted more than that like Monster Hunter: World and CivVI, although MHW's story mode is kind of short, there's a lot of post end game. I think I began to want my games about 100 hours back when I got into Final Fantasy games.

>I picked this up. I plan of playing it soon.

Cool, I'd like to see what your thoughts are about it.

>Overall, I want to support any single-player Star Wars games.

At this point I want to support any good single-player games. In the "Before You Buy" video, they described this as dying genre, which I've been noticing a lot lately and it's really pissing me off. I hate how pretty much every game has to have some sort of multiplayer to it or content that's so hard that you pretty much cannot do it alone. I mean, it's great if you have friends to play with, but I don't have very many Steam friends and only one of them has one of these games I'm referring to (MHW). I do have a friend that has Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order though.

I didn't pay attention to anything regarding BlizzCon except for this announcement and I'm totally on board for it. Why weren't you initially excited for this? Was it because of the Blizzard controversy? I just watched the game play trailer and it was all I needed to get hyped. :) I'm thinking I may also be a day one Druid. Morphing looks cool! I might be a Barbarian though.

I feel like D3 was a big success, but that's just my opinion, not necessarily based on facts. It seems as though it had a bad start, but improved greatly afterward, some time before I started playing it. I recall something being said about the auction house and how that supposedly was bad. I never got to experience it. I thought the graphics of D3 were perfect. I didn't see them as "too cartoony." This argument reminds me of Zelda: The Wind Waker where people whined about its art style, which I enjoyed. I couldn't get myself to play another Diablo game, because of the dated graphics. D3 really impressed me though and I felt like what I saw of D4 was really D3 with improvements. I didn't pay attention to the graphic style, just the technological upgrade. It looked like something that was more HD or more technologically current, if that makes sense. What I want from D4 is pretty much just more D3. I like what I've seen of D4 so far. Other than what they've shown, what I want most is for the game to give us more classes to play with. Three just feels too few and makes me feel like if it's limited to that, then I probably won't want to play it as much or more than I've played D3.

I hadn't installed Battle.net/Blizzard's launcher on my new PC until I found out about this announcement. Now I'm just waiting to find out when I can order it. :) When or if I find more details I may post them here or make a new post, I'll figure that out when it happens.

Thanks for the links. Some of those videos (at least the first according to my just clicking the link real quick and the last according to your description) seem near an hour long. So, I may check them out some time. I haven't been watching YouTube as much lately. There are some D4 videos in my YouTube subscriptions list, but I don't think I'm going to watch them. All I needed was the game play video I shared and embedded in this post. This is an odd thing to say, but I am a fan of Diablo (the games or at least D3), but I don't like blood at all. So, I could have gone without watching the cinematic, although it looked like a great piece of work, technically speaking along with the great amount of graphical detail.

"Diablo 4 - 5 BIGGEST Changes You Need To Know About" https://youtu.be/3-etWtnoGxk

There are a couple of things I want to say about these changes. The video says the game may not be out for "years." I was hoping much sooner, like one at max. But, I also realized we found out about the Warcraft III remaster quite a while ago and it's still not out, so I guess this should be expected.

One of the first things mentioned is the "shared world," in which you'll be running along side other players. You can play a private session, but you cannot play offline. If there wasn't a private session, I would probably be much more hesitant to play it. I don't want to play with strangers. I want to play D4 just the way I play D3.

What do you think about these changes?

I'm the opposite. When I found out about D4's "shared world" my anticipation for the game nearly died and I decided that I may have to rethink my desire for the game, but I found out you can play it alone and that made me feel better. I feel like games are getting too saturated with multiplayer aspects and they're ignoring the single player. I don't want to play with strangers. I do like playing with friends, though. There are "MMO" games I like to play, like Ark: Survival Evolved and Atlas. These two games have a single player mode, but too much in them is still much too difficult to do alone and I hate it. I believe that is why the most recent expansion for Ark was a sever disappointment to me, it added more things that pretty much require multiplayer. Monster Hunter: World is kind of like this, too. You create an online session, but you're not automatically paired up with other players. However, there is content you can try to do on your own, until you get your ass kicked badly and realize that that content is not for the single player. I feel like the single player game is dying or obsolete and now a "revolutionary" idea. This is my most recent video game rant. Tale of the White Wyvern is different, pretty much, in my mind. You don't have to do PVP (I don't, because I don't want to) and interacting with other players is fun, even humorous at times. But, that game doesn't kick my ass for not trying to do something in a group when I'd rather play alone.