Now Gaming: ... Created 13 years ago2010-12-11 02:04:50 UTC by AJ

Is it particularly boring and raining for a couple of days where you live?

Remove the words "for a couple of days" and you've got England pretty much nailed.

Is weathering the horrid weather you get the reason why the Britons are so tenacious urby?

I spent a month in london a couple january's ago, and the weather was hard for me to handle. Even around 30 degrees F, i felt chilled to the bone like it was subzero.. just nasty, and i didn't bring enough warm clothes nor winter coats, because i thought the weather would feel tropical compared to the zero-degree weather we had at home at the time, but NOT SO.

Does the sun ever come out there? =)

England doesn't have real weather, what a fucking joke.

Come north of the border and oor weather'll set aboot ye

If you're saying it's more windy/cold/damp there? Simply not possible.

While i was there we had a 15-minute walk to work each day, and i died a little each time from the frigid air. Also, the pedestrian traffic WILL kill you everyone walks so fast, and on the wrong side of passageways

Temperatures given in Fahrenheit for Americans to understand. (PS the rest of the world uses Celsius, catch up.)

50 degrees --
New Yorkers turn on the heat.
People in Scotland plant gardens.

40 degrees --
Californians shiver uncontrollably.
People in Scotland sunbathe.

35 degrees --
Italian cars won't start.
People in Scotland drive with the windows down.

20 degrees --
Floridians wear coats, gloves, and wool hats.
People in Scotland throw on a T-shirt.

15 degrees --
Californians begin to evacuate the state.
People in Scotland go swimming.

Zero degrees --
New York landlords finally turn up the heat.
People in Scotland have the last bbq before it gets cold.

10 degrees below zero --
People in Miami cease to exist.
People in Scotland lick flagpoles.

20 degrees below zero --
Californians fly away to Mexico.
People in Scotland throw on a light jacket.

80 degrees below zero --
Polar bears begin to evacuate the Arctic.
Scottish Boy Scouts postpone "Winter Survival" classes until it gets cold enough.

100 degrees below zero --
Santa Claus abandons the North Pole.
People in Scotland pull down their ear flaps.

173 degrees below zero --
Ethyl alcohol freezes.
People in Scotland get frustrated when they can't thaw their kegs.

297 degrees below zero --
Microbial life start to disappear.
Scottish cows complain of farmers with cold hands.

460 degrees below zero --
ALL atomic motion stops.
People in Scotland start saying "chilly, you cald an aw?"

500 degrees below zero --
Hell freezes over.
Aberdeen win the Scottish Cup.

I spent a month in london a couple january's ago, and the weather was hard for me to handle. Even around 30 degrees F, i felt chilled to the bone like it was subzero..

Try living in Canada.

460 degrees below zero --
ALL atomic motion stops.
People in Scotland start saying "chilly, you cald an aw?"

lol'd so hard.

Too bad nobody cared to make this funny joke concentrating on real numbers.

The lowest temperature on Earth ever recorded was at Vostok Station at the South Pole, -89.2 °C (-128.6 °F).

[EDIT] Archie, I'm pretty sure that all over the world people plant gardens even below 50F(10C). I know we do around here...

Goddamnit I had a good bit of discussion typed out for PB and then page backed. frickityfrickfrick, balls. I hope you appreciate the discussion lol, I'm typing it twice.

The AH is really not intended to be malicious. It is intended to be a solution to the black market which ruined, ruined, RUINED Diablo 2. It is honestly intended to help the economy rather than rip off players. The small "tax" on sold items helps pay for the servers, which at this point are planned to be up for 15 years. I'll take this over a $15 a month subscription fee any day of the week.

as error 37 has made all too apparent

Obviously the first few days are going to be unpredictable. You don't open servers to millions of people and have it go off without a hitch, that's just unrealistic. This is Blizzard. They run WoW, they have as much experience keeping populated servers running as anyone else and I trust them. I'm not going to throw a shitfit because the game goes down every once in a while for maintenance.

In the past you could just load up a modding tool and add the weapon stats you wanted"

I disagree that this is good. This is bad. Bad bad bad.

PS, Activision can suck one.

There are ways to prevent cheaters in MP games that are better than stopping modding for EVERYBODY and forcing always-online. Besides, now the advantage goes towards the people with the disposable income to spend on virtual crap and it's not even considered "cheating" anymore.

As much as you disagree with the idea, there are plenty of people who want to play the game in "singleplayer mode", just like they played the first two. I don't think those people shouldn't be able to play the game just because the multiplayer servers are down for maintenance.

This isn't really an issue with Diablo, but with the idea behind it. After the success of D3, which only got away with it because the name is so huge, many other games will probably soon follow - and they'll get away with it because D3 already soaked up most of the controversy. In 5-10 years there might be a whole generation of SP games that cannot be played any more because the servers are offline.

Idk, it still seems like half of the people hating on this spiffy new race car are calling it stupid because they don't like the paint(wow-similar graphics), and half are hating on it because it's not street legal and they need to drive it on the track, and only when it's open (which is 24/7 unless the track crew is doing maintenance).

I've just gotten to Act IV and the story is fucking great, better than either of the previous two. The cutscenes are jaw-dropping. I've never been nearly this engrossed in a Diablo game's story before. The gameplay changes have grown on me by now- I just learned you can check an option which lets you completely freely assign skills to the keys, including 2 skills from the same tree. The changes to the potion system, the changes in pacing, the changes in difficulty- I don't care to mention how many times I've died on normal. I had fun in Act 1 but the shit that goes down in Act 3 and 4 is fucking nuts. Act 3's boss battle was insane. He had a seaker spell that 1 hit KO-ed my buddy, and left me at about 15% health. Huge pools of blood that did damage to you was filling the arena as we fought. Fucking madness.

It's totally fine to not like a game, but to pass the entire thing off because of what amounts to little more than petty, bureaucratic bullshit is just silly, and that seems to me what most people are doing.

"What do you mean that you occasionally do maintenance on the race track? THIS IS BULLSHIT, THIS RACECAR SUCKS, YOU'RE OUT TO GET ME, FAGS" - the gaming community.

Oh and I don't think Diablo "got away with it" because of it's name, I think it did because it's fun and this doesn't stop the fun.

Oh, and about the disposable income buying items- yeah, it does. It doesn't buy the number of hours of play time need to get a toon to 60, nor does it buy and this is crucial SKILL. I have a feeling it will also buy you loads of ridicule from some other players

I could buy the best gear in the game and still get my ass handed to me by a better PVP player than I.

I don't see anybody saying anything about a poor storyline, poor gameplay mechanics or poor graphics. All I see is complaints of the DRM it uses.

THATS MY POINT! That's nuts! Judge a game by how it plays! If you enjoy playing it, play it! If you don't, don't! Don't make your final stand against your corporate overlords! Bad shallow gaming community, bad!

It's like when Yahtzee discounts all of multiplayer gaming because it's the same every time with different people and outcome! Futbol is the same every time with different people and outcome! Baseball! Chess! No one likes those stupid fucking things, right????

Gaming is about FUN not OVERCOMING FIRST-WORLD OPPRESSION.

Bad shallow gaming community

It's nothing to do with being shallow. I refuse to buy Apple phones/mp3 players because of how they treat their foreign labour force. That's not shallow - that's moral.
In a similar light I refuse to give my money to a company who punish the end user for buying their game. It's the most idiotic way to deal with piracy.
It's like those 2 new copyright notices at the start of DVDs and Blu Rays in the US - like 5 of the biggest distributors of DVDs in the states have agreed to put these 2 unskippable 30 sec copyright warnings on their DVDs. Who sees them? The people who buy the DVDs. Who doesn't? The pirates. Who is punished? The people who bought the DVDs. It's counter-productive and is all supportive of the SOPA and PIPA style of content management in the digital age effectively removing any rights of the end user and it's shocking that people are okay with it.

It's like when Yahtzee discounts all of multiplayer gaming because it's the same every time

No, you're contradicting yourself because that's relating to how the game plays, not the service that allows you to play it.

I love Steam, but its offline support could be seriously improved since offline mode only seems to work properly 75% of the time. Diablo 3 has no offline support. That just ain't right.

I really don't think equating requiring an internet connection to play a multiplayer videogame to modern day slave labor is fair.

And we all use Steam. It basically does require a connection, and it's basically the most popular fucking thing ever.

TL;DR Diablo 3 launches, internet-wide First World righteousness bandwagon ensues.

It really works less then that IMHO. Honestly, who predicts when their internets going to go down? How many LAN parties do you guys go to? Offline mode only ever fucks me, and I still love steam and use it all the damn time. If my computer's on, Steam is running.

Oh, and I wasn't contradicting myself Archie, you misunderstand me. I was not talking about the service, I was talking about the game. He hates on multi because it's the same objective on the same maps every time. Chess is the same goal on the same board with the same pieces every time. He is completely missing the point of multi.

Likewise, I feel it is missing the point(the point is fun, remember) to discount a great game when you love games, because of some inside-industry political bullshit. But whatever.

I really don't think equating requiring an internet connection to play a multiplayer videogame to modern day slave labor is fair.

I didn't equate it. I said it was similar and I used an extreme example because you genuinely don't seem to understand why people might have a problem with this.

Steam. It basically does require a connection

It requires a connection to download your game and update it. After that, unless it's a multiplayer-only game, you're free to play the game on or offline.

I don't want a publisher to have the right to tell me when I can and can't play a game I purchased, but the EULA of games like this and in particular Origin actually explicitly say that the end user has no ownership of any games they buy using these services. Sadly Steam doesn't take an opposed view to this, but merely stands in unclear, muddy waters of not taking a stance yet.

If I want the game badly enough I'll stomach it - (see BF3) - but it's a scary prospect that the money we spend on these games doesn't actually give us any ownership of them - just the right to use the service that enables them.

A good recent example of where this can go seriously wrong would be when the PSN was hacked. All PS3 users suddenly lost access to all their online content and many games refused to run without it. What's to stop that happening to whatever service Diablo runs on?

Going off on a slight tangent here, but

I love Steam, but its offline support could be seriously improved since offline mode only seems to work properly 75% of the time.

Actually I think it works fine pretty much all of the time, it's just understanding how it works. For offline mode to function, you have to have an active internet connection because it has to log into your account, and then it goes into offline mode after it's verified your information.

To be honest, I don't see much use in the mode because you have to know ahead of time that your internet is going to go out in order to use it.
I'm pretty sure it only logs in to access your game library, otherwise people could just put a bunch of games in the steamapps folder that they don't own, and then play them in offline mode, free and legally.

Don't like you making assumptions about what I think, Blitz. At no time did I say anything about the gameplay of the game itself. The issue here is with the precedent that is set by the always-online DRM for singleplayer. People have had the same issues with Ubisoft's always-online crap, and look at how quickly they backed down from that. It's not a good thing for the players, and it's not a good thing for the industry.

No I do understand why, I just think it's a bit silly. And saying it's similar is equating it.

[quote]It requires a connection to download your game and update it. After that, unless it's a multiplayer-only game, you're free to play the game on or offline.[quote]

Except that you need to turn to offline mode then shut down. When my internet cuts out, I can't play 50 or 75 of my games. That's not as bad as D3's connection... how?

Again, nothings really to stop it from failing other than Blizzards experience and good track record with WoW. If there existed a company that could do this better than them by some measurable degree, you'd have a point.

At no time did I say anything about the gameplay of the game itself.

Exactly. Like I said:

"Likewise, I feel it is missing the point(the point is fun, remember) to discount a great game when you love games, because of some inside-industry political bullshit. But whatever. "

edit: sorry for double post
You guys are too defensive, you're missing the important bits I wrote. Maybe I write too much.

Well I think it's like a great comedian act that has security that doesn't follow logical procedure to letting people in and just simply picks people at will. You could argue that the security doesn't dictate the quality of the show itself, but the point is, is that you can't even see the show at all.

What? I mean, I read what you said, but I don't see how it is like that. What do you mean by "at will"?

Can you please elaborate for me?

Oh and Pengy, what did I say that seemed like an assumption of what you think? I didn't intend to.

Well, it's not really meant to be a literal comparison, but basically it means the security doesn't follow a logical method of deciding who's allowed in or not [If there's an age restriction to come in, if they're causing trouble etc] but rather they decide who get's let in or not based on their own opinions of a person. So therefore, legitimate ticket buyers who would have enjoyed the show didn't get to, because of some arbitrary system.

Like I said, it's not meant to be taken literally, the point of the story is that legitimate buyers can't judge what you say is good because of some system that failed for them, so they have every right to complain about it, just not about what they didn't get to enjoy because that would be ignorant.

Sorry about my terrible sentence formatting, I usually type things out as they would be said, so I prefer to use commas as pauses or seperators instead of completely stopping a sentence.

The club being the game? The security being Blizzard? The people being allowed in = us?

Ok, I get that much, that's a good start, but I totally don't get "allowed in". Not one bit. You pay for the game to buy your ticket into the club. You are not "allowed" in. You paid to get in.

I still don't follow you, explain more.

they have every right to complain about it

To who? Me? Here? Why? To accomplish what? I jumped into this discussion about Diablo 3 to discuss Diablo 3. Complaining is not discussing. Kthanks.

Oh and don't apologize for trying to explain your point to me, that's the whole point of this, is it not? I love games and I love discussion, no mad here. No mad, friends.

The security is the DRM, with video games the right to play it [pass security's clearance] should be that you bought the game, maybe check the CD or a CD key or such, because those are reliable and proven methods. Instead, the security uses an abitrary system that is unreliable and therefore people who should have passed security's clearance didn't.

Steam is for the most part reliable, but it again is not as reliable as other methods, and so when steam goes down [happened maybe a couple times this year] nobody could do anything to play their games unless they were luckily logged in or in offline mode, meanwhile people with pirated steam games didn't have this problem.

Sorry, I realise the moment has passed but I really can't let this slide:

And saying it's similar is equating it.

It most certainly is not.
Equate: "To consider one thing to be the same as or equivalent to another."
Similar: "Having a resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity, without being identical."

equal vs comparable, basically.

Ok. This is good. I'm following you like a pair of heat-seaker missles right up until here:

Instead, the security uses an abitrary system

Explain how Diablo III, a multiplayer game (regardless of whether previous games in the series were both multi and single), requiring an internet connection(among the most stable in the industry through experience) is "arbitrary". Check my previous posts, I gave a few examples of why it's necessary if you want some easy points.

Ok, by equate I meant compare. Sorry. That is what you did. I don't really feel that fair at all. I compared it to race cars. You compared it to slave labor. C'mon, man. Whatever, it's besides the point anyways. How does this particular misunderstanding negate the rest of the discussion?

I've got to go to bed real soon, nowish, got work. Leave me any discussion. I will also accept PM's. Tootles.

I'm not sure how heavily focused on Multiplayer the game is, but best I can tell it has a singleplayer campaign and what I'm saying is that if that were the case, you should only have to log into your account if you chose to play multiplayer instead of singleplayer.
This is the way it is in most games, but for example RvS Vegas 2 you have the main menu, and if you click on multiplayer it will ask you to sign in, you sign in and you're in the multiplayer menu. If you don't want to play MP you just hit singleplayer and you're playing, connection free or not.

What I'm saying is that you should not have to log in at the start of the game [meaning you have to log in just to launch the game to get to the main menu], only if you choose to play MP from the menu.

I'm glad i never got around to playing diablo, because i'm really afraid of how much i would like it.. All my RL friends are cumming in their pants playing right now can't even get a hold of them

I'm not sure how heavily focused on Multiplayer the game

As I've said a bajillion times. THERE IS NO SINGLE PLAYER DIABLO III. There were previously Diablo games that you could play singleplayer.

What I'm saying is that you should not have to log in at the start of the game [meaning you have to log in just to launch the game to get to the main menu], only if you choose to play MP from the menu.

There is no "Multiplayer" menu option. This is a multiplayer game. You can create your own instance. You can then chose to allow other people into it. Freinds can request being allowed in via the list. You can invite anyone in at any time.

Anyone can join any game made public by it's owner at any time through Quickjoin.

There is a full chat channel system just like before.

There is no singleplayer.

A full PVP section of arenas is coming in the future.

TL;DR you guys are trying to fight me over DRM when the subject doesn't even apply to this very fun game.

[edit] goodnight <3

No one is arguing that there is a single player mode in diablo 3. We are saying there should be, and that it sucks that there isnt.

Stop taking this personally bk, its a fun, very addictive game, but the online only shit is killing me. I choose to play the game solo on the 1st run through, and when I get random disconnects, it erks me.

No one is arguing that there is a single player mode in diablo 3. We are saying there should be, and that it sucks that there isnt.

For the record I'm not saying that. Players can choose to ignore the whole MMO aspect to it and can stay in their own instance indefinitely, though, right? Why do they need to be online to do that?

I was watching my brother play some last night. Looked like some good fun until he got booted off the server 5-10 minutes in. He's a mostly casual gamer, and has absolutely no interest in the online features of the game, so it's a shame he can't just enjoy a simple solo quest.

He's in the world there all by himself, playing at his own pace. That's pretty much the definition of a SP game to me. Doesn't seem right at all to have that restriction in there spoiling his fun.

I'm pretty sure it only logs in to access your game library, otherwise people could just put a bunch of games in the steamapps folder that they don't own, and then play them in offline mode, free and legally.

You can get Steam to remember your account credentials once you've logged on once, you just need to tell it to go offline manually. It does save what you have in your library, AFAIK, so you are probably right that you couldn't play games you don't own. (Never tried this, but I expect they have safeguards)

Everyone I know that uses steam complains about offline mode, but I've never had a problem with it myself. I suppose that might change if I were to actually use online mode for more than downloading, but if you have a laptop or a connection that's not always on, so you know when you're not going to be connected, it's perfectly stable.

I don't think I'm going to get DIII. I never really got into Diablo, and with the DRM and the fact that it's over half-way to an MMO now, I just don't see any reason to get this latest one.

No one is arguing that there is a single player mode

Like four people were.

Stop taking this personally

LOL

Why do they need to be online to do that?

I answered this. Back in the thread. Short answer: to stop retards from ruining Diablo like they ruined every other version of Diablo. They ruined it for everyone.

He's in the world there all by himself, playing at his own pace. That's pretty much the definition of a SP game to me

If you drive a four-seated race car alone, does it magically become a one-seat race car? No, there's gonna be three empty seats. Likewise, for the hundredth time, there is no singleplayer Diablo III. Your bro is playing a multiplayer game, online, alone. Which is perfectly fine! I've probably done about half of my first play through alone so far.

Why does this seem to go in and right back out everyone's ears?

Diablo 3 is a multiplayer game that is 100% about end-game. The actual game known as Diablo begins when you reach level 60 with your first toon. Consider that equal to reaching 80 or so in D2:LoD, which could be done in a matter of hours. (although my fastest 1-80 ever is closer to one full day)

It's basically like this: Diablo is baseball, and lots of people seem to think that the walk up to the plate is the whole game. They get there and shout "DONE!". Baseball is the game. You start playing when you get up to plate, even if you're on the field before then, as you're walking up. Does this analogy make sense to any of you? The first playthrough, being told the story as you go, is merely walking up to the plate in the world of Diablo. The first pitch hasn't even been thrown yet.

Ok. There's no single player mode. Maybe there should be one?

Why is "I'm not buying D3 because it forces me to always be online" any different to "I'm not buying D3 because it has no single player mode"? I'm reasonably sure that 'offline mode' and 'singleplayer mode' can be considered equal when talking about this game.

I mean it's just semantics really, but there's absolutely no reason why the game couldn't feature a single-player, offline mode that isn't multiplayer. Except: DRM.

I'm sorry that you have to react so aggressively to people not wanting to play Diablo because they don't like the way the game works. People are stating their opinions, and you're trying to tell them that their opinion is wrong and they should think the same way that you do. People enjoy games in different ways.

Maybe its an experiment like Carmack did with RAGE capping it at 60fps which ruined it, ME3 that you all hated the ending and many other fine examples. Everyone has a net connection these days, its a good exploit for companies like blizzard. So if you want to play an overhyped game wait a few months till the hype goes down and play it w/o ever dropping out. In other words: deal with it.

I guess it is all down to personal preference. Lots of people didn't buy Battlefield 3 because they had to use Origin to play it and battlelog to find a server.

For one, Origin's input is minimal. It launches battlelog and you never touch it again. Battlelog is pretty awesome. I recently discovered that it records EVERY SINGLE GAME played right down to every shot fired. I love it, others don't. Fair enough I suppose.

Diablo 3's beta is what got my back up about the game. I finally got a connection, started a game and then 3 other guys jumped in and started trashing the place. I felt like I'd been waiting in a queue to get raped.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by "assholes ruining the previous games." I loved Diablo 2. Never once needed to connect to the net and never had an issue with the game. Sure not being connected to the net is the best protection against assholes ruining a game.

I'll explain what I meant when I get home I'm on my phone. I'll answer penguin too. Also, if you're detecting aggression sorry but I was basically being outright ignored. It took me all damn day to explain something as basic as a game not having a single player. Very frustrating.

am i the only one confused at why capping Rage at 60 fps like every game with vsync does ruined it?
don't get me wrong, it's a fairly rubbish game, but i can't say I've ever considered lovely vsync to be game-ruining. What a peculiar thing to say...

Why would you want to run it over 60fps?
I understand people believe that technology has to advance and numbers have to increase but really we're already at the point of fluid motion with 60fps. Any more is just stupid bragging rights.

I agree with Collapse. A lot of guys bitch about the necessity of running a game above 60fps, which is just an expensive pretention.
I play a lot of intense-graphics games below 40FPS and I only start to bitch about it if it goes below 25FPS.

Pengy: That's all valid. Except you didn't jump in the convo compaining that there was no single player, you jumped in complaining about DRM, which is irrelevant. That is all I was disagreeing with, then trying very hard to explain to you all why.

Also, please use quotes to show me where I attacked you personally. You also accused me of assuming what you think, I politely asked you to show me where I did that, and you ignored me. Please do these things, those accusations are very unfair.

Urby: Read my baseball analogy again. You're telling me that walking up to the plate was never ruined, which is true and fair. You are correct. I'm talking about, however, everything that happens once you get to the plate. The actual game. The most basic elements of the Diablo metagame are:

*Economics(the most important thing by far, affects every other aspect)
*PVM(tied closely with economics)
*PVP

Economics was ruined first. Duping. Third-party sites selling dupes, bots, leveling services, you name it. Items intended to be nearly mithical in rareness are so common that they go for a couple of cents each. Here's a site selling duped Stones of Jordan, among what are supposed to be the, if not THE, rarest items in the game, in TEN PACKS for $2.99 http://www.diabloitems.net/uswest-non-ladder/unperm-items.html

The odds of high runes dropping are one in the thousands, and that's if a rune drops in the first place, and that's if the mLvl, aLvl, and iLvl (cLvl doesn't come into play in this particular example) are all high enough to drop the rune. But alas, even they are valueless.

Obviously when the economy fails, the other aspects of the game fall right behind it.

By "retards ruining Diablo" I of course mean everyone who wants all the glamour without doing any of the work. They want elite items but they don't want to do 2000-3000 high trav runs to get them. They don't want to stack 600% magic find and spend an hour a night doing 60-second Meph runs. They don't want to stay up long into the night perfecting the build with which they will run Ubers for torches. They don't put effort into playing, at all, and they want all of rewards that those who do put effort forth earn. They supported these sites who dupe and use bots, and they diluted the economy to the point where it simply died. They don't like Diablo, but they played it anyways, and they ruined it.

Does that make sense?

Oh, and I think comparing it to rape is a little harsh. Like, way harsh. I called Huntey out on his unfair comparison and so it'd be terribly unfair to him if I didn't disagree with this also. I guess not everyone knows someone who's been raped.

[edit] Archie I agree with everything you just said. RAGE was shit, Vsync is over-hyped as being bad. I'd use it in BF except my FPS is usually 55 or so, and turning it on would make absolutely no sense. Which is too bad, because the tearing in BF3 is among the worst I've ever seen. It's so bad lol. So much tearing. I mean yeah mouse lag is a terrible thing from a competitive standpoint, but my guess is that 90% of the people who bring that up aren't competitive enough for it to actually make a difference in their playing.

Oh and if you guys are seeing my long writings and taking it as "mad" or "aggressive" or "taking it personally" you are very, very wrong. Take it as "passionate about games". I love teaching almost as much as I love learning.

I still don't see how it's a multiplayer only game.
From everything I've read about this game, it's a singleplayer game with the option to play coop with your friends. Like L4D, or alien swarm. It doesn't matter if it's heavily focused on playing with your friends like l4d or AS, it's singleplayer core gameplay.

It's not PVP, it's not like playing TF2 on a local server with bots, it's a singleplayer game with the option to have your friends join you in a world and play cooperatively with you.
Think L4D, AS, Portal 2, SS2. Not at all like WoW, which is a PVP MMO.

It's a co-op game that you can choose to not let anyone else into. There are no "multiplayer" or "singleplayer" options in the menu. It is one menu. I've spent 15 hours in so far and you've never played it.

I. Give. The. Fuck. Up.

It's a co-op game that you can choose to not let anyone else into.

Yes, and my point is, is that is literally singleplayer gameplay, with the option of playing multiplayer. If it is required that you have two or more people for the game to actually launch and sucessfully play, then it's a multiplayer game.
TF2 or CSS on a local game without any other players in the server is singleplayer under the definition that there is a single person in the server playing, not multiple people.

What? Explain.

Furthermore, what do you mean by "it's not PVP"?

PVP is like 1/2 of Diablo.