Originally posted by huskie77

Originally posted by DarkPony

Originally posted by Reliique

My review:

If you were born around 1970-1986 you probably played Diablo I & Diablo II, you are getting close to 10/10 experience, lets say 9.5/10

If you were born around 1987-2000 you probably havent played Diablo I, most likely Diablo II, unless you were long time into games and appreciate old games (Fallout 2 blows Fallout 3 out of the water if you didn't know) you probably get initial 6-8/10 raiting experience.

If you don't appreciate this genre, you are getting 2/10.

Server issue is temporary issue thx god.. but I agree its a big fockup from Blizzard...well shit happends :)

1976, played D1 and D2 (as well as TQ and some others) and love the arpg genre, just not this game. I was really hoping on more depth and choice to typical hack and slash gameplay, but to me it seems it's only more simplified.

What difficulty level are you on? If on normal, yes it is simple and dumbed down to allow people new to ARPG to get their feet wet. If you think it's simple on hell hardcore then I bow down to you.

 I think he's more concerned with complexity than difficulty. Lack of complexity has always been a weakness, or a strength depending on your preference, of the Diablo series.

I love how people claim metacritic is bad when they are a fanboi of the game it's bashing.  Yet quote it's scores for games they don't want to be successful :P

TBH Metacritic is more honest than official reviewers (who often receive royalties).  It shows how the masses view a game and feel about it.  For me, a cash shop (pay-to-win) is enough for a low score.  Also the fact they pass it off as an MMO which it clearly isn't....

Though it will probably get "game of the year" because of the amount of reviewers that are "friendly" with blizzard and the amount of copies they sell.  But it's far from actually being the best game released this year.

I find it amusing that so many people seem to have missed the point on this game by such a wide margin.

DRM

Diablo 2 you could play single player without connecting.  What happend?  There was mass duping and the game was a laughing stock because people cheated.  So in order to try to prevent this from happening, they introduce the must be connected to the internet.  I mean seriously its not DRM, its how it is for online games, whether you like it or not Diablo 3 is not a single player game, the illusion of being able to play on your own sure you can do that in a MMO as well, that doesnt mean an MMO with no one else around = a single player game.

Auction House RMAH

Even now, go google buy diablo 2 items, see how many hits you get.  RMAH is the decriminalisation of the act of using your money to get the item you want.  Which if you really want it and have the money you are going to do anyway.  Dont be naive in thinking that its a Pay to Win button because it isnt.  Its simply people playing the game they want in the way that they want, if you dont have time ingame to farm for hours and hours this item to drop but are willing to spend $50-60 for someone else to do it then, thats fine with me.  By doing that you pay for the maintenance on the servers that allows me to play the game subscription free.  I understand that Blizzard has to find the ongoing costs of server maintenance someway, it costs money on a monthly basis to have support staff, 24/7 servers etc, RMAH is the way they pay for that.  Before anyone says what about the $60 I spent to buy the game, that would only last so long, it pays for the development up to this point, but not really the sustainability for 12 years?

Skill System

This is the part that really I dont understand where people dont get the simplicity and brilliance of the system.  If you look at the traditional method of player choosen Attribute increasing at level up, where is the choice?  If you are a mage for example 9 times out of 10 you would pick intellect.  If you are a warrior/barbarian you would pick Strength.  So I ask you Where is the choice if all you are going to do is pick the attribute that is needed for your class?  Is anyone really going to pick a High Dexterity based Mage/Sorc?  If they did the character would be gimped.  So I dont have a problem with this at all.  The other part is the skill up points per level, where the haters think you have to have a skill tree.  Well, listen, do you know that your characters abilites become tailored based on the abilities you are using so if you levelled from 1-60 and then switched the core skills they wouldnt be as strong as someone who used the same skills all the way through.  Similarly how in a skill tree you can only specialise on certain skills?  Hmm the 2 sound pretty similar to me, but the choice from the new skill system is designed as not to be a choice which is in your face.

All in all I think people need to do some research before they comment on how bad this game is when they havent even played it.

Originally posted by NasherUK

I love how people claim metacritic is bad when they are a fanboi of the game it's bashing.  Yet quote it's scores for games they don't want to be successful :P

 

TBH Metacritic is more honest than official reviewers (who often receive royalties).  It shows how the masses view a game and feel about it.

No it doesn't. You are absolutely wrong. Yes, "official" reviewers - And please stop saying that. There are no official reviewers. They are just people with opinions, are complete hacks

but you are kidding yourself *YOU* think that what is on meta is a representation of what the masses think. The masses dont think D3 is a 3.6. They don't think Mass Effect 3 is a 3.9 - They might have thought it was not as good as 2 or the ending was poor, but many of the people who loved it, dont even bother going on meta and writing about it.

These systems are abusive by trolls, how can you not see that?

I wouldn't take metacritic too seriously nowaday's. Loud idiotic people just trying to ride the next bandwagon and complain about everything and blame everyone else for their problems as reached it's peak.

Just look at this guy for example, this is the first thing i read form a 2/10 guy named

''eatnut'':

D3 can't save map you have explored. every time you get dc or server down you have to start from the check point and explore the map again.

Tell me why do you take these reviews seriously, the guy doesn't even know what Diablo is and was probably still a sperm when we played D1 and D2. He doesn't even know what's the game supposed to be but he his giving his opinion even though we don't know who he is, what he accomplish and why we should care about what he thinks.

The good news is that he won't be playing D3.

Originally posted by Kalfer

Originally posted by NasherUK

I love how people claim metacritic is bad when they are a fanboi of the game it's bashing.  Yet quote it's scores for games they don't want to be successful :P

 

TBH Metacritic is more honest than official reviewers (who often receive royalties).  It shows how the masses view a game and feel about it.

No it doesn't. You are absolutely wrong. Yes, "official" reviewers - And please stop saying that. There are no official reviewers. They are just people with opinions, are complete hacks

 

but you are kidding yourself *YOU* think that what is on meta is a representation of what the masses think. The masses dont think D3 is a 3.6. They don't think Mass Effect 3 is a 3.9 - They might have thought it was not as good as 2 or the ending was poor, but many of the people who loved it, dont even bother going on meta and writing about it.

These systems are abusive by trolls, how can you not see that?

 

 

Tera is doing pretty decently though.

In my opinion meta often functions like a magnifying glass for an overall good or bad impression and it's clear on which side of the fence D3 landed.

Originally posted by Kalfer

Originally posted by NasherUK

I love how people claim metacritic is bad when they are a fanboi of the game it's bashing.  Yet quote it's scores for games they don't want to be successful :P

 

TBH Metacritic is more honest than official reviewers (who often receive royalties).  It shows how the masses view a game and feel about it.

No it doesn't. You are absolutely wrong. Yes, "official" reviewers - And please stop saying that. There are no official reviewers. They are just people with opinions, are complete hacks

 

but you are kidding yourself *YOU* think that what is on meta is a representation of what the masses think. The masses dont think D3 is a 3.6. They don't think Mass Effect 3 is a 3.9 - They might have thought it was not as good as 2 or the ending was poor, but many of the people who loved it, dont even bother going on meta and writing about it.

These systems are abusive by trolls, how can you not see that?

 

 

Yet when you look at games that deserve praise (like Deus Ex:HR) they have a high score on metacritic, as does Max Payne 3 which launched at the same time as D3.  So your troll theory is disproved.

And no ME3 wasn't that great either.

Originally posted by StarI

Game does not try to revolutionarize anything. But it still is amazing fun to play, really addictive and all in all very well done for what it is.

 

addictive? really? i played for an hour  during beta then i stopped...

Originally posted by huskie77

Originally posted by DarkPony

Originally posted by Reliique

My review:

If you were born around 1970-1986 you probably played Diablo I & Diablo II, you are getting close to 10/10 experience, lets say 9.5/10

If you were born around 1987-2000 you probably havent played Diablo I, most likely Diablo II, unless you were long time into games and appreciate old games (Fallout 2 blows Fallout 3 out of the water if you didn't know) you probably get initial 6-8/10 raiting experience.

If you don't appreciate this genre, you are getting 2/10.

Server issue is temporary issue thx god.. but I agree its a big fockup from Blizzard...well shit happends :)

1976, played D1 and D2 (as well as TQ and some others) and love the arpg genre, just not this game. I was really hoping on more depth and choice to typical hack and slash gameplay, but to me it seems it's only more simplified.

What difficulty level are you on? If on normal, yes it is simple and dumbed down to allow people new to ARPG to get their feet wet. If you think it's simple on hell hardcore then I bow down to you.

hard or normal isnt relevent, it is still a hack and slash game.....

revolution baby, so hard to find them these days..

here is the thing about metacritic and user reviews in general. if you sell 100 apples and 90 people like it and 10 people dont out of those 90 people liking it most likely 1 or 2 will write a great review. But out of the 10 people who are disastified you are going to to get about 8 negateive reviews.

Its why user reviews are shit and always have been.

Originally posted by pmaura

here is the thing about metacritic and user reviews in general. if you sell 100 apples and 90 people like it and 10 people dont out of those 90 people liking it most likely 1 or 2 will write a great review. But out of the 10 people who are disastified you are going to to get about 8 negateive reviews.

Its why user reviews are shit and always have been.

Originally posted by binary_0011

Originally posted by StarI

Game does not try to revolutionarize anything. But it still is amazing fun to play, really addictive and all in all very well done for what it is.

 

addictive? really? i played for an hour  during beta then i stopped...

Well I tried drugs when I was young but I did not get addicted. That doesn't make em any less addictive tho.

Originally posted by NasherUK

Originally posted by Kalfer

Originally posted by NasherUK

I love how people claim metacritic is bad when they are a fanboi of the game it's bashing.  Yet quote it's scores for games they don't want to be successful :P

 

TBH Metacritic is more honest than official reviewers (who often receive royalties).  It shows how the masses view a game and feel about it.

No it doesn't. You are absolutely wrong. Yes, "official" reviewers - And please stop saying that. There are no official reviewers. They are just people with opinions, are complete hacks

 

but you are kidding yourself *YOU* think that what is on meta is a representation of what the masses think. The masses dont think D3 is a 3.6. They don't think Mass Effect 3 is a 3.9 - They might have thought it was not as good as 2 or the ending was poor, but many of the people who loved it, dont even bother going on meta and writing about it.

These systems are abusive by trolls, how can you not see that?

 

 

Yet when you look at games that deserve praise (like Deus Ex:HR) they have a high score on metacritic, as does Max Payne 3 which launched at the same time as D3.  So your troll theory is disproved.

And no ME3 wasn't that great either.

First of all, it's not a theory so there is nothing to disprove.

Secondly, and I am absolutely baffled why you mention DE:HR like it means anything. PLENTY of hardcore fans of the original, and games like system shock dislike that game. It deserves praise by your standard. You will find lots of people who were heavily invested in the original who didn't like it. Who is right? NO ONE. 

Because you can't categorize everyone into boxes and then make up a factual statement about it's quality.

Just like you don't find MILLIONs of people who think Modern Warfare 3 and Madden are the best games ever - casual frat boy gamers who doesn't know what Metacritic is because they are not so invested in it. So even though a game might get deserved claim, it does not show the full story.

You end by saying ME3 was not that great either. Well, not that great is a 5 or a 6. That's the normal average. 3.9 is incredible bad, and obviously a ploy against EA and Bioware because people are emotional. 

Bioware games and Blizzard games gets hate from the people who claim those circles. A guy who plays 3 games a year does not spend his time on meta and writing negative reviews. He probably doesn't play that many games and just wants diablo because his friends like it - He will most likely love it too. It depends on were you come from.

Just look at this forum - The hatred towards WoW here has ALWAYS been inconsistent with peoples enjoyment who loved it elsewhere. So again - metacritic is dumb.

Originally posted by camelund

Skill System

This is the part that really I dont understand where people dont get the simplicity and brilliance of the system.  If you look at the traditional method of player choosen Attribute increasing at level up, where is the choice?  If you are a mage for example 9 times out of 10 you would pick intellect.  If you are a warrior/barbarian you would pick Strength.  So I ask you Where is the choice if all you are going to do is pick the attribute that is needed for your class?  Is anyone really going to pick a High Dexterity based Mage/Sorc?  If they did the character would be gimped.  So I dont have a problem with this at all.  The other part is the skill up points per level, where the haters think you have to have a skill tree.  Well, listen, do you know that your characters abilites become tailored based on the abilities you are using so if you levelled from 1-60 and then switched the core skills they wouldnt be as strong as someone who used the same skills all the way through.  Similarly how in a skill tree you can only specialise on certain skills?  Hmm the 2 sound pretty similar to me, but the choice from the new skill system is designed as not to be a choice which is in your face.

 

All in all I think people need to do some research before they comment on how bad this game is when they havent even played it.

 

 

I agree with you on this. But the whole problem is that therein lies the lack of depth. If warrior, stack strenght, if mage, stack intelligence. You would have thought that at some point some RPG would wake up and make things more advanced again.

This is what makes this game dull. The lack of depth. And it's not just this game, it's a tendency all over the scene - at least with the bigger companies. And why? Because kids and somewhat shallow people should be able to enjoy the games. Now, it's only fair that there are games for everyones taste, but lately it seems that all major games are made for just that segment - kids and somewhat shallow people.

One could hope, that Blizzard had the class to offer something to people that enjoy depth and variation, but no, they just made a primitive action-game. As I wrote above, there should be room for these, of course there should. The problem is that it's all we get nowadays. And that is bloody annoying.

And to those who claims that the rating on meta isn't in any way reflecting the publics oppinion - you should try to read some of the reasons a lot of people do not think Diablo is a good game. Obviously you've got a point when mentioning that people that are not pleased are more likely to review on meta, but 3.6 is still a low score and there are many contributers that supply reasons for their dissapointment - oh, and there are quite a few on this forum as well. So it's not just haters clicking a button at meta, some people actually think this game is a huge dissapointment...