Just wanted to point this out after someone in another thread stated Metacritic wasn't a reliable source:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo  [8.3]

---

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-ii  [8.5]

---

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii  [3.6]

Pretty much my thoughts entirely.

Oh, and just for a bit of reference for those of you looking for stronger data =):

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-ii  [4.2]

--

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dead-island  [6.8]

--

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-3  [3.9]

--

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-2  [8.5]

--

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect  [8.4]

I'm having a hard time finding one "User Rating" I don't disagree with other than Dead Island that I believe should have been a 5.8 instead of a 6.8, but that's because I'm a BIT more critical about zombie based games than others in its genre ;)!

Don't worry about any of this If YOU enjoy the game at the end of the day. However, just realize that after everything is said and done Diablo 3 was not the game it should have been. For the fans :|....

"Don't worry about any of this If YOU enjoy the game..."

No answers obtained seem to be a clear message

Add this one:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/tera  [7.8]

and Swtor is a bit harsh but pretty accurate in my opinion too:

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/star-wars-the-old-republic [5.7]

No, just no, the rating is due to nerd ragers who couldn't log in at midnight at launch.

Originally posted by jusomdude

No, just no, the rating is due to nerd ragers who couldn't log in at midnight at launch.

Not all of the reviews are like that. A lot are actually very well worded with good points raised.

Another one for the op: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/spore [4.7]

Originally posted by jusomdude

No, just no, the rating is due to nerd ragers who couldn't log in at midnight at launch.

That's probably a part of it but not the only reason I expect: there's also a lot of disgruntled D2 vets commenting on how this is not the game that they were looking forward to for over a decade.

Metacritic ratings are full of emotion-filled nerd rage. If you are prone to emotion-filled nerd rage, then you may agree with what you find there.

Acutally i'm starting to think these are console fanboy bots, the amount if stupidity that they have written and the really generic nicknames they have is quite funny. None of them know what diablo is and i'm willing to bet they don't even own the game.

Originally posted by DarkPony

Originally posted by jusomdude

No, just no, the rating is due to nerd ragers who couldn't log in at midnight at launch.

That's probably a part of it but not the only reason I expect: there's also a lot of disgruntled D2 vets commenting on how this is not the game that they were looking forward to for over a decade.

Ok, so there are some who are nerd raging that diablo 3 ins't diablo 2.

The only thing I realize is that at the end of the day some people need to have their personal choices confirmed by others. For those of us that have moved on from our high school years we realize we can enjoy what we want without worry about if its cool  or not.

Originally posted by jusomdude

Originally posted by DarkPony

Originally posted by jusomdude

No, just no, the rating is due to nerd ragers who couldn't log in at midnight at launch.

That's probably a part of it but not the only reason I expect: there's also a lot of disgruntled D2 vets commenting on how this is not the game that they were looking forward to for over a decade.

Ok, so there are some who are nerd raging that diablo 3 ins't diablo 2.

That's a wrong way to put it I think.

Originally posted by jusomdude

No, just no, the rating is due to nerd ragers who couldn't log in at midnight at launch.

Case in point, dude. You shouldn't HAVE to log in to play a single-player game...unless you want to play with other people. Go buy a 50" widescreen TV and see how happy you are if it only let you watch cable (no local devices worked, no consoles, no DVD players, etc.)

Didnt really effect me u til last night, when I couldn't play due to the servers being busy.....yea, kind of annoying to not be able to play my new $60.00 game during the window of time were I could....and in case you are going to ask, I reserve the right to drive my car anytime I want as well, seeing as how I am paying for that as well.

Sadly, this will probably be my last Blizzard product. I simply do not like we're the company is going.

I really enjoy the game personally.  I play it with a colleague from work and we both have fun.

meta critic seems to have a severe bias against sequels, as if a billion fanbois cried out because the game isnt what THEY wanted

Swell, you've just proven you consider opinions that agree with yours a reliable source. Except for all those people who don't always agree with the crowd. For them it's useless.  Especially if they don't immediately fly into a rage if the login servers are down. So what are you going to say when the score starts to rise? Will your opinion of metacritic or your opinion of the game change?

Originally posted by DarkPony

Originally posted by jusomdude

No, just no, the rating is due to nerd ragers who couldn't log in at midnight at launch.

That's probably a part of it but not the only reason I expect: there's also a lot of disgruntled D2 vets commenting on how this is not the game that they were looking forward to for over a decade.

I am still displeased that Diablo 2 wasn't more like Diablo 1. However I don't confuse that with the majority opinion, or only correct opinion, as many of these "disgruntled D2 vets" seem to.

My question is what is going on with "paid" publication reviews. I remember when an average score in a game magazine was 5, about right. But I now rarely see scores below 7 and i see far too many 8 and more.  Sure u got to cypher throuhg user reviews but u get a less advertising dollar influenced opinion.

Originally posted by neorandom

meta critic seems to have a severe bias against sequels, as if a billion fanbois cried out because the game isnt what THEY wanted

ME2 did fine though. Does that make it the exception to the rule?

When you have thousand and thousand of people voting which is enough to build a statistical base, its pretty hard to deny them their opinion, especially when they all point the same few aspects.    

[/quote] Originally posted by jusomdude No, just no, the rating is due to nerd ragers who couldn't log in at midnight at launch.[/quote]

And, why shouldn't it count? Everyone is telling Blizzard they don't want to have to bother with internet connection to play in solo mode, and this since months already, the whole damn internet is telling them "we don't want this", they had all the time necessary to fix and change this, but they just denied this critic and ignored it, and we all know why which doesn't help their case since its obviously related with their RMT revenues. Now they have to deal with their own choice and have to deal with people that can't play their solo game because of connectivity issues on Blizzard side, which is even worth than anyone had excepted. So in any case they put themselves in this situation for greediness, why would the reaction from consumers be otherwise? . This is very much to the point and one of the biggest reason why D3 get such a low score, and obviously it is a very good reason indeed.

Originally posted by jusomdude

Originally posted by DarkPony

Originally posted by jusomdude

No, just no, the rating is due to nerd ragers who couldn't log in at midnight at launch.

That's probably a part of it but not the only reason I expect: there's also a lot of disgruntled D2 vets commenting on how this is not the game that they were looking forward to for over a decade.

Ok, so there are some who are nerd raging that diablo 3 ins't diablo 2.

Pretty much. When a company decides to corpse rape a long time established IP instead of moving into new territory they have to expect this kind of behavior. In other words if they don't want vetran fans bitching about how this game doesn't stack up against its predecessors, instead of judging it by its own merrits, they shouldn't have named it Diablo 3.

To me releasing a third installment of a game series twelve years on, after the majority of the people that made the earlier games great have f*cked off elsewhere, isn't a sequel. Its just a vain attempt to retain market place relevence.

In my not so humble opinion, D3 as its own game is just fine for a clicky walky dungeon crawler. (Not fine enough for me to shell out my own dosh to the frankenstein's monster that is modern day Blizzard mind you. But I will still play it a bit on one of my house mates accounts.) As a Diablo sequel however I find it to be the redheaded step-child of the Diablo legacy. Just one of those siblings doomed to hear "Why can't you be more like your older brother Ralph" for eternity.

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Swell, you've just proven you consider opinions that agree with yours a reliable source. Except for all those people who don't always agree with the crowd. For them it's useless.  Especially if they don't immediately fly into a rage if the login servers are down. So what are you going to say when the score starts to rise? Will your opinion of metacritic or your opinion of the game change?

Originally posted by Tardcore When a company decides to corpse rape a long time established IP instead of moving into new territory they have to expect this kind of behavior. In other words if they don't want vetran fans bitching about how this game doesn't stack up against its predecessors, instead of judging it by its own merrits, they shouldn't have named it Diablo 3.

To me releasing a third installment of a game series twelve years on, after the majority of the people that made the earlier games great have f*cked off elsewhere, isn't a sequel. Its just a vain attempt to retain market place relevence.

In my not so humble opinion, D3 as its own game is just fine for a clicky walky dungeon crawler. (Not fine enough for me to shell out my own dosh to the frankenstein's monster that is modern day Blizzard mind you. But I will still play it a bit on one of my house mates accounts.) As a Diablo sequel however I find it to be the redheaded step-child of the Diablo legacy. Just one of those siblings doomed to hear "Why can't you be more like your older brother Ralph" for eternity.