Think of the worst MMO Launch youve experienced...

Yup, D3's Launch was (and still is) worse.

And that's saying something....

Originally posted by Tardcore

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.

 Time and again it's happened that if you don't change things you get excoriated for not bringing anythng new or crucified for not staying true to a game's roots if you changing the littlest thing. Often at the same time for the same sequel. Is it any wonder developers don't listen to us?

Originally posted by Requiamer

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.    

 

This would only be true if everyone was objective on their reviews and not biased, which isnt the case, we know for a FACT that people will give low reviews on only one aspect such as "I couldnt login at 12:00 when it launched ill give it a 0 or 1 or 2", now I look at games like Big Rigs which were essentially unplayable joke ( literally, if you havent seen big rigs, you need to go on youtube, it has been voted the worst game of all time many times ) has a 4.1 user rating and Diablo 3 has 3.6 hehe, that to me says the whole thing is worthless.

By your logic you should be playing Big Rigs cause its better than Diablo 3.

Here is your game that is better than Diablo 3, enjoy! :D

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB1zWEhgrLs

Man its annoying when they take the server down to fix . I just finished a 8 hour play session on D3 .  Im in act 4 and my Barbarian is a killing machine .

It's is the greatest game Ive ever played !

Between the server issues and the lack of PvP at release, I'm sure people lost their collective minds the first day this was out.

Both things were made clear though before the game was out. #1 you would have to be online to play and #2 PvP wouldn't be there at release.

We can argue all we want the vailidity of either one, but if you knew that was going to be the case and still purchased the game and are now complaining about it...who's fault is that?

I personally think the you shouldn't have to be logged in for a single player, but blizzard stated this was going to be the case before the game came out. So you have to go in knowing that and knowing that there may be issues with connectivity especially on a release date for such a big game.

That's why I waited till Friday to take the day off from work! Let them get the kinks out first.

I personally am having a great time with the game, people who thinks it's a "3" are certainly entitled to their opinion.

Originally posted by fundayz

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?

 

By your logic ANY average rating for anything is meaningless. That is obviously not true. Now, the game IS rated too low and it WILL rise but it will never reach the 9/10 or 10/10 that the latest installment of one the most popular video game franchises of all time should have been. The point many hardcore fans make is that D3 simply does not FEEL or LOOK like a Diablo game. It plays like generic A-RPG; D3 doesnt have the gritty atmosphere or character planning features that made the first two games so memorable. Factor in the online-only play and lack of PvP and you get a product that is simply not true to it's predecessors. 

And many Hardcore fans completely disagree. So who is right? all of them and none of them. It is the nature of opinions that they are worthless to people who do not share them.  Holding opinions up as the proof of the reliability of opinions is absurd.

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by Tardcore

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.

 Time and again it's happened that if you don't change things you get excoriated for not bringing anythng new or crucified for not staying true to a game's roots if you changing the littlest thing. Often at the same time for the same sequel. Is it any wonder developers don't listen to us?

And I don't disagree with your point, damned if you do, damned if you don't. However, maybe these juggernaught companies could try creating N E W games for a change. Instead of just dragging out, dusting off, and tarting up their old doddering whores, time and time again. Maybe then all the horse sh*t we just mentioned would go away. Or at least bring in some fresh horse sh*t for us to wade through in shinny new big boots.

i love it. how some 16 year old selfproclaimed game critics talk about a game they obviously never played (diablo 2 or even 1)

diablo 3 has EVERYTHING it should have.

the athmo is just as it should be, gloomy and dark with a tendance to overpower here and there.

whoever claims that the previous diablo games have been much darker and "more evil looking" or whatnot should maybe play those old parts first ^^

here a few examples:

does this look much darker to you than what you know from d3? seriously? it doesn't, does it? :)

so seriously, stop this "mimimi this aint a diablo game" stuff, because it IS.

i played all the diablo parts, i wasn't a "hardcore fan" before but i surely played em enough to state a judgement on your theories here, and my judgement is: death.

Originally posted by fundayz

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?

 

By your logic ANY average rating for anything is meaningless. That is obviously not true. Now, the game IS rated too low and it WILL rise but it will never reach the 9/10 or 10/10 that the latest installment of one the most popular video game franchises of all time should have been. The point many hardcore fans make is that D3 simply does not FEEL or LOOK like a Diablo game. It plays like generic A-RPG; D3 doesnt have the gritty atmosphere or character planning features that made the first two games so memorable. Factor in the online-only play and lack of PvP and you get a product that is simply not true to it's predecessors.

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.

 

Nail head, meet hammer

Aye. Seconded.

well, there is a saying on the net about you guys:

HATERS GONNA HATE.

hate blizz as much you want, this IS a diablo game. a worthy one. maybe you just never played or understood the 2nd part tho? ever reached hell? or rather, left normal? ever been in the ladder (btw, where is the ladder?? THIS should be a reason to flame, not your faulty points above)

Yes, people are probably giving it a negative score on metacritic because of the bad launch, and most of those people will still play the game.

But the 3.6 Metacritic score is the price Blizzard has to pay for such a horrendous launch, and I am dumbfounded why there are so many connection problems when they have two massively succesful online games under their belt.

You cant tell me that just because Diablo 3 was developed by a differrent team within Blizzard that they werent able to use the same networking code which works fine for Starcraft 2 and WoW, especially when they specifically set up a server management system like Battle.Net for their games.

This just screams of incompetancy to me, and while the game itself may be enjoyable, the DRM and online service thus far has been far from it.

They deserve such low Metacritic score, maybe they will think twice about treating their customers like sheep.

Originally posted by Tardcore

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by Tardcore

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.

 Time and again it's happened that if you don't change things you get excoriated for not bringing anythng new or crucified for not staying true to a game's roots if you changing the littlest thing. Often at the same time for the same sequel. Is it any wonder developers don't listen to us?

And I don't disagree with your point, damned if you do, damned if you don't. However, maybe these juggernaught companies could try creating N E W games for a change. Instead of just dragging out, dusting off, and tarting up their old doddering whores, time and time again. Maybe then all the horse sh*t we just mentioned would go away. Or at least bring in some fresh horse sh*t for us to wade through in shinny new big boots.

 Unfortunately our buying patterns don't reflect this. Sequels have always been the safer more profitable route. Hence we get Witcher 2, a very good and sucessful sequel, instead of something completely different from CD Projekt RED. An independent and innovative studio. Entirely new projects are almost always financially riskier.

Originally posted by DarkPony

Originally posted by fundayz

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?

 

By your logic ANY average rating for anything is meaningless. That is obviously not true. Now, the game IS rated too low and it WILL rise but it will never reach the 9/10 or 10/10 that the latest installment of one the most popular video game franchises of all time should have been. The point many hardcore fans make is that D3 simply does not FEEL or LOOK like a Diablo game. It plays like generic A-RPG; D3 doesnt have the gritty atmosphere or character planning features that made the first two games so memorable. Factor in the online-only play and lack of PvP and you get a product that is simply not true to it's predecessors.

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.

 

Nail head, meet hammer

Aye. Seconded.

Pretty much spot on.

Originally posted by angzt

well, there is a saying on the net about you guys:

 

HATERS GONNA HATE.

 

hate blizz as much you want, this IS a diablo game. a worthy one. maybe you just never played or understood the 2nd part tho? ever reached hell? or rather, left normal? ever been in the ladder (btw, where is the ladder?? THIS should be a reason to flame, not your faulty points above)

Also remember that a lot of people playing Diablo III will be WoW players (advertisements on WoW, promotional offers....), which has probably the biggest community of whiny, annoying children I've ever seen in a game (and no, you don't have all the swearing in Hello Kitty online - which makes the community probably more mature).

Also:

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/351567/Possible-hope-for-this-forum.html

I don't get why people are saying this isn't a Diablo game... it plays like a diablo game, it feels like one, it looks like one.

A duck is a duck, as they say.

Not having the same developers has very little to do with it. The current developers have played the diablo games, and they know them, they just decided to change a few things... and for the better I might add.

Understandable that some give 0 points when others give a 10. You would find such strange ratings on mmorpg.com aswell. This is not only a problem about "haters", it is a problem aswell about "boaster" but at the end it is a problem to see a true rating anyway, not even game magazines achieve it always.

In addition, a lot of consumer give bad ratings if the business modell is not acceptable for that. Not all take this into consideration.

Eh, I hardly find myself in agreement with any user-based aggregated ranking. The more users we have, the more sentimental  and extremist these rankings get. I'd say I only care about professional reviews, but it seems they're also becoming as unprofessional as anything... Supply and demand for you.

And, Diablo 2 better than the original Diablo? No way!