Seriously most people on sites I see are rating Diablo 3 a 1 becuase they do not like needing to be online to play. I confess it is annoying to be disconnected and having to start over a zone, which is why I have it a 9 instead of a 10, but this game is not a 1. I have faith however that Blizzard with fix that problem one way or another, and it has been minimal for me as I am always online.

Others are mad becuase the game is much different than Diablo 2 in that there are no scrolls of town portal or the class advancement is totally different. The problem is if they played the game they would ralize that the new way might be better in their eyes. Instead of upgrading their stats, you get to choose which spells you use out of 5 and which upgrades you want to use on them.

The videos and music are amazing and the theme is true to the series. Others also complain that the graphics are subpar for the 10 years it took to make the game. The series have always had the same graphical theme. 

In the end I think Diablo 3 is not perfect, but it is an excellent addition to the series and adds some new things to the series like the spells runes and Blacksmith and Jewelcrafter (which is mostly the same as the Horadric Cube, but he does a little more like taking out gems from sockets.)

What do you expect them to do? Completely ignore that fact? It doesn't matter how good the game is if people can't play it, and the always online is a big factor of basic access and playability. Now, I haven't read any reviews, so I don't know precisely how it's being treated, but it is a legitimate complaint for many people, and one that should be considered when giving a final score.

game made by entirely new team than the one that made D2

game fundamentally differently from D2 in many negative ways

entirely online only play money scheme

real money auction house money scheme

dated graphics that look worse than SC2

lag in single player mode

game beaten by most in less than 20 hours of play time

We waited 12 years.

Now do you see why we're upset?

One thing is certain

The game is extremely overhyped

Its main seeling point is that it's Diablo and made by Blizzard,extremely resembling SWTOR status when it was launched...

I mean would you defend the lack of certain features(even tho they're "supposed" to be added), if it were not blizzard's diablo III???

Most of the people that bought it love it.  It sold 6.3 million copies already and will likely sell a ton more on consoles once they release it there.  1 star ranting reviews over DRM or a bad two days after launch are worthless.  I'm sure a ton of the anti-DRM reviews are from people that didn't even try, let alone buy, the game.  Most gamers on the fence just need to ask a friend what they think of the game.

To be honest.........

1) It does not matter whether it gets fair reviews or not. there are millions playing it and that all that really matters to the players and to the producers. If you put your faith in a review, another person opinion, and you don't play then more fool you, sorry.

Millions upon millons of people are playing it and are happy with it, of course there will be a few that don't like, but hey you cant please all the people.

2) The fact that they choose to make the game require an Internet connection is our, the players, own fault. If we did not cheat and scam then producers will not have thought this necessary.

So if you have ever played a game you did not pay for or cheated in a game then you are to blame for this. If you haven't then that's just tough luck. Blizzard is protecting what is their's, and you cant blame for that, blame the cheaters and scammers etc for this.

Originally posted by Laughing-man

game made by entirely new team than the one that made D2

game fundamentally differently from D2 in many negative ways

entirely online only play money scheme

real money auction house money scheme

dated graphics that look worse than SC2

lag in single player mode

game beaten by most in less than 20 hours of play time

 

We waited 12 years.

 

Now do you see why we're upset?

See, that right there makes anything else you said and might say completely void. Get over yourself and try to remember what gaming is all about.

Originally posted by Laughing-man

game made by entirely new team than the one that made D2

game fundamentally differently from D2 in many negative ways

entirely online only play money scheme

real money auction house money scheme

dated graphics that look worse than SC2

lag in single player mode

game beaten by most in less than 20 hours of play time

 

We waited 12 years.

 

Now do you see why we're upset?

How is entirely online play a money scheme? The auction house is a money maker when it launches for them but its not even in game yet. You don't need to pay to play this game like an MMO, its buy once so i fail to see your point here.

It didn't take 12 years, it took 6 at best becuase it was scrapped about 6 years ago and they started again.

The game is different because it's not 1999, blizzard are a huge company focused on attracting as many players as possible, noobs and veterans alike.

The game was not beating in less than 20 hours by anyone, sure NORMAL difficulty is beatable in that time but if you are a Diablo veteran like you seem to claim then you would know that beating any game in this genre in ONE difficulty is not completing the game.

The graphics are fine, it's a business decision to have it look good on LOW settings so that just about any computer can play it. As for the people that think that the graphics should look amazing because its been in development for 12 years, thats a load of crap, if your in dev for that long you would have to keep overhauling the game engine and graphics and you would end up never being able to keep up, see the latest duke nukem for proof.

The question at this point is how long will they be loving it. If it's still getting this kind of reviews and sales two months from now, I'll be far more willing to minimize the complaints. Otherwise, it can join the pile of recent game releases that have turned out to be duds. It's still far too early to make a final judgment; I don't care how big the numbers are. Only time will tell whether the hype was correct or not.

I find the situation similar to what Wizards of the Coast went through with 4th edition. The sales numbers were ultimately fantistic for any game that didn't have the D&D name, but for WotC, the edition was far from the success they were expecting, and it generally is seen as not nearly as successful as it could have or should have been. I can see the potential for D3 to be the same. 6.3 million is a lot for any game that isn't made by Blizzard, but for a Blizzard game, it's still not likely to be seen as all that great if that's its peak. Like it or not, it's competing with WoW, and if it can't reach and sustain those kinds of numbers, it will still ulitmately be seen as less than it could have been.

Comparing to D2 and D1, I think it's a great add to the series.

Comparing to a nowdays AAA game... it's kindoff comparing Tetris to D2 at the time.

Note: Tetris is a great game.

Originally posted by sunshadow21

What do you expect them to do? Completely ignore that fact? It doesn't matter how good the game is if people can't play it, and the always online is a big factor of basic access and playability. Now, I haven't read any reviews, so I don't know precisely how it's being treated, but it is a legitimate complaint for many people, and one that should be considered when giving a final score.

Sunshadow other than the first day, I have had only once instnace of not being abot to play it for 15 minutes. I think people over sensationalize it. That time it was down was for 15 minutes. I think those people taking the game back becuase they could not play the first day are missing out. Frankly I am having a blast!

Originally posted by Nirrtix

Seriously most people on sites I see are rating Diablo 3 a 1 becuase they do not like needing to be online to play. I confess it is annoying to be disconnected and having to start over a zone, which is why I have it a 9 instead of a 10, but this game is not a 1. I have faith however that Blizzard with fix that problem one way or another, and it has been minimal for me as I am always online.

Others are mad becuase the game is much different than Diablo 2 in that there are no scrolls of town portal or the class advancement is totally different. The problem is if they played the game they would ralize that the new way might be better in their eyes. Instead of upgrading their stats, you get to choose which spells you use out of 5 and which upgrades you want to use on them.

The videos and music are amazing and the theme is true to the series. Others also complain that the graphics are subpar for the 10 years it took to make the game. The series have always had the same graphical theme. 

In the end I think Diablo 3 is not perfect, but it is an excellent addition to the series and adds some new things to the series like the spells runes and Blacksmith and Jewelcrafter (which is mostly the same as the Horadric Cube, but he does a little more like taking out gems from sockets.)

It depends one which reviews you're reading.  There's another post that lists several major sites that all give it rather high rankings, and a lot of us agree with them.

I'm having a blast, and many others are as well.  A lot of my friends have put their other MMOs on hold to pick up Diablo III and play through it, and they all love it.

The stores in my area couldn't keep the Collector's Editions in stock, and the regular ones are blowing out too.

The midnight launch at my local Gamestop had a line wrapping around the building.

Diablo III's doing fine, no matter what the naysayers are going on about.

PC gamer gave it a 90 out of 100, pretty good score in my opinion. I don't really look at any other sites though. I'm not sure why people on an mmo site complain about the always online thing.. 

I'm sure GW2 will be coming out with an offline mode right?

Originally posted by sunshadow21

The question at this point is how long will they be loving it. If it's still getting this kind of reviews and sales two months from now, I'll be far more willing to minimize the complaints. Otherwise, it can join the pile of recent game releases that have turned out to be duds. It's still far too early to make a final judgment; I don't care how big the numbers are. Only time will tell whether the hype was correct or not.

I find the situation similar to what Wizards of the Coast went through with 4th edition. The sales numbers were ultimately fantistic for any game that didn't have the D&D name, but for WotC, the edition was far from the success they were expecting, and it generally is seen as not nearly as successful as it could have or should have been. I can see the potential for D3 to be the same. 6.3 million is a lot for any game that isn't made by Blizzard, but for a Blizzard game, it's still not likely to be seen as all that great if that's its peak.

Yeah 6.3 million buys is poor performance I am sure the shareholders at actiblizzard will be gutted at raking in $378m in one single week.

Sure Diablo2 lasted for many many years but how many people that bought it originally do you think played it for all those years? Probably not very many.

Originally posted by sunshadow21

The question at this point is how long will they be loving it. If it's still getting this kind of reviews and sales two months from now, I'll be far more willing to minimize the complaints. Otherwise, it can join the pile of recent game releases that have turned out to be duds. It's still far too early to make a final judgment; I don't care how big the numbers are. Only time will tell whether the hype was correct or not.

I find the situation similar to what Wizards of the Coast went through with 4th edition. The sales numbers were ultimately fantistic for any game that didn't have the D&D name, but for WotC, the edition was far from the success they were expecting, and it generally is seen as not nearly as successful as it could have or should have been. I can see the potential for D3 to be the same. 6.3 million is a lot for any game that isn't made by Blizzard, but for a Blizzard game, it's still not likely to be seen as all that great if that's its peak.

I dont think it matters, Blizzard dont care they have made their money back and a healthly profit to boot.

Diablo has a cult following so it will not be a dud and I can assure you that there will be a expansion if not 2.

Note that majority of people dont post about about games on Internet, they speak with their wallets, so far 6.5 mill + have spoken, and whether that is low for a Blizzard game is neither here nor there, it is already is a success and will be around until DB4 even if that takes another 12 years.

Originally posted by SlickShoes

Yeah 6.8 million buys is poor performance I am sure the shareholders at actiblizzard will be gutted at raking in $378m in one single week.

Sure Diablo2 lasted for many many years but how many people that bought it originally do you think played it for all those years? Probably not very many.

For any other game, franchise, or company, it would be an unmitigated success, but this is Diablo and Blizzard. The expectations for not just short term, but long term sales, are high enough that 378 million is a good start to be sure, but unless it can grow from that and sustain itself at least that level, it will still ultimately be seen as a disappointment by many.

Originally posted by Laughing-man

game made by entirely new team than the one that made D2

game fundamentally differently from D2 in many negative ways

entirely online only play money scheme

real money auction house money scheme

dated graphics that look worse than SC2

lag in single player mode

game beaten by most in less than 20 hours of play time

 

We waited 12 years.

 

Now do you see why we're upset?

I think you are jsut looking for a reason to complain.

Sadly true the original Diablo 2 team did not make this game that is not necessarily a bad thing

The negatives are outweighted by the positives. Have you given the game a chance?

Umm What entirely onliny only money scheme? The game is free after you purchase it. There is no monthly fee.

As for the auction house, you do not have to use it. Sheesh...

The graphics are worse than SC2?!?!?! That is humerous. They are much better than SC2

I have not seen any lag in single player mode that i did not see in Diablo 2 single player. Yes Diablo 2 lagged in single player mode if you were in big fights.

Hun I beat diablo 2 single player (pre expansion) in 20 hours.

I do not see why you are upset. I think you jsut are complaining becuase the game is not jsut like Diablo 2.

Originally posted by sunshadow21

The question at this point is how long will they be loving it. If it's still getting this kind of reviews and sales two months from now, I'll be far more willing to minimize the complaints. Otherwise, it can join the pile of recent game releases that have turned out to be duds.

LOL what a pile of crap.  They sold 6.3 million.  No game could sustain that rate and they've sold more than they had a right to hope for all ready.  They've sold a ton and the game most certainly isn't a dud.  Having just finished Hell difficulty I can most certainly say the game is worth the hype. 

Originally posted by VultureSkull

Originally posted by sunshadow21

The question at this point is how long will they be loving it. If it's still getting this kind of reviews and sales two months from now, I'll be far more willing to minimize the complaints. Otherwise, it can join the pile of recent game releases that have turned out to be duds. It's still far too early to make a final judgment; I don't care how big the numbers are. Only time will tell whether the hype was correct or not.

I find the situation similar to what Wizards of the Coast went through with 4th edition. The sales numbers were ultimately fantistic for any game that didn't have the D&D name, but for WotC, the edition was far from the success they were expecting, and it generally is seen as not nearly as successful as it could have or should have been. I can see the potential for D3 to be the same. 6.3 million is a lot for any game that isn't made by Blizzard, but for a Blizzard game, it's still not likely to be seen as all that great if that's its peak.

I dont think it matters, Blizzard dont care they have made their money back and a healthly profit to boot.

Diablo has a cult following so it will not be a dud and I can assure you that there will be a expansion if not 2.

Note that majority of people dont post about about games on Internet, they speak with their wallets, so far 6.5 mill + have spoken, and whether that is low for a Blizzard game is neither here nor there, it is already is a success and will be around until DB4 even if that takes another 12 years.

hun, Blizzard should be about making a profit... they are a COMPANY any company that is not trying to make a profit I would not invest in.

Well, the poor reviews aren't due to the game being bad, but by the players. Every poor review I've seen appears to be from one of two types of people. They're either people that have never played or have very little experience with hack 'n slash rpgs or are just disgruntled about having to be online, usually both.

Anyway, I've always been a huge fan of the hack 'n slash genre, because I enjoy the common staples related to it. I've played nearly every hack 'n slash game ever created and I'm confident that Diablo 3 is the best among them. I can't say whether it will be better than Torchlight 2 or not, but it's leagues ahead of Path of Exile. Every aspect of the game has been incredibly enjoyable for me and it's just a pleasure to play. I really can't say anything more than that.

I guess the problem is that Diablo 3 pulled in a lot of genre beginners that don't know a thing about hack 'n slash and expected it to be like God of War or something similar.