Originally posted by Doomedfox

 

I agree that D3 does not get fair reviews but i think the problem is not that some unhappy ppl rate it way too low the real prob is that professional sites rate it way too high.

I will not go into all the points as to why i think a 90 rating is way too(i say 90 since i found most reviews came in this region) much but i will say that any game that claims to be AAA that was in development for many years and that makes you pay 60$ should at least have weapon animations i mean wtf seriously we get 1 animation for all our weapons no matter if my monk uses a staff 2 swords 2 daggers or hand to hand weapons he will always use the same ability animations (hand to hand).

If any other game (Company) would have released a AA game for 60$ with this much lack of animations it would have been getting hate sooo much hate and no chance of a rating around the 90s but since its Blizzard no one even talks about it and its all hush hush.

D3 is a solid game but has many flaws if you compare it to current games a 80s rating might have been ok (85 if animations would be there) but the overall high reviews show that that the OP was right and D3 does not get reviewed fair by professional sites.

Doomed that is a fair way to put it. I think the average should be closer to an 80. My problem is some people are rating the game without giving it a chance. Many on sites are rating without even playing it becuase they took it back the first night becuase they could not play it. MAny games havea rocky start. This is no different.

as for the anitmations you mean graphics I assume. The graphics are fine. That is blizzards style that is also the style of the series. As for the flaws, the flaws I see are falws in comaprison to D2. I can overlook most of them, but the thing I do not get is why some things were flat taken out. For instnace how they took out scrolls of town portal and identification, yet you still have to identify items by simply right clicking them! Why have unidentified items at all?!? Regardless it is not a game breaker, but odd.

Why do people keep assuming Blizzard used all those years on THIS Diablo 3?

They scrapped several "Diablo 3" games before finally deciding the direction to take the game into.

But whatever, right? Lets abuse that and make the game seem bad.

Originally posted by SlickShoes

D3 is not an MMO, its a standalone buy a box for $60 game, so all that matters is initial sales.

Uncharted 3 sales are at an all time low now despite only coming out last November, is that flop in your book?

If it was meant to be a standalone buy, than why include a RMAH? Anyone who thinks Blizzard sees D3 as a single purchase is kidding themselves.

I don't know about Uncharted 3, I just know that people who are absolutely in love with and defending D3 to the hilt right now are just as likely to change their opinions as those who dislike it, and generally good opinions turned bad are much, much more damaging than any other kind of PR.

Originally posted by BizkitNL

Why do people keep assuming Blizzard used all those years on THIS Diablo 3?

They scrapped several "Diablo 3" games before finally deciding the direction to take the game into.

But whatever, right? Lets abuse that and make the game seem bad.

some sites are claiming this. I agree they probably scrapped several game models and graphics engines before making this one. 10 years ago this game would not run on a machine from then.

Originally posted by sunshadow21

Originally posted by SlickShoes

D3 is not an MMO, its a standalone buy a box for $60 game, so all that matters is initial sales.

Uncharted 3 sales are at an all time low now despite only coming out last November, is that flop in your book?

If it was meant to be a standalone buy, than why include a RMAH? Anyone who thinks Blizzard sees D3 as a single purchase is kidding themselves.

I don't know about Uncharted 3, I just know that people who are absolutely in love with and defending D3 to the hilt right now are just as likely to change their opinions as those who dislike it, and generally good opinions turned bad are much, much more damaging than any other kind of PR.

Please explain to me how D3 is going to goto pay to play model? Hun, they would not. If they did noone would play a Blizzard game again. I know I would not. I do not mind paying to play a game if that was always the intent. If they sold me a game telling me that it was free to play after buying then inacted a monthly fee, it would kill that companies reputation in my and jsut about everyone's eyes. I think you are worrying about something that will not happen.

Originally posted by Nirrtix

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, 

So... if that problem were gone you'd give it a 10? That is a fair review? A 10?

The hypocrisy of fanbois and haters around here simply astound me.

/laff

I am playing the game and having much fun playing it but to be honest the game is only a 7.5-8.0. For a game to be 9+ it has to be almost perfect at every level and very few games are actually that good. Of course we now live in a era where 9.0 is standard and games actually get a score of 10 but needs somethings improved. I guess we forgot what a perfect score means.

The user reviews are (as always) completely emotion driven and obviously irrational BS.  The game is obviously not anything below a 7.

I found some of the critic reviews fair though.  I think the game is an 8.5.  It is great fun, and I would have given it a 9, but I dinged it .5 points because of the always online issues, no mods, and RMAH.

I've already been annoyed with the always online, and I can imagine I will also be annoyed by the other two aforementioned issues.

Originally posted by Nirrtix

Originally posted by Doomedfox

 

 

Doomed that is a fair way to put it. I think the average should be closer to an 80. My problem is some people are rating the game without giving it a chance. Many on sites are rating without even playing it becuase they took it back the first night becuase they could not play it. MAny games havea rocky start. This is no different.

I do understand where you are coming from but i do not think its a real problem games make commercial with high professional reviews they do not put reviews from nobodies on there commercial or boxes they use the reviews from the professional sites.

So while i do agree with you that personal ratings of 1 are just stupid and not fair do i believe the real problem is the marketing value of the unfair (too high) professional reviews potential customers get blended by that and lured in to buy the game.

I also do think that ppl are to forgiving to the miserable start of D3 such starts might have been normal in MMORPS in the past but never for single player games with Multilayer actions at least not till now so the lesson we learned has to be to be careful when a new MMORPG launches and even more so if a Blizzard game launches.

Originally posted by sunshadow21

Originally posted by SlickShoes

D3 is not an MMO, its a standalone buy a box for $60 game, so all that matters is initial sales.

Uncharted 3 sales are at an all time low now despite only coming out last November, is that flop in your book?

If it was meant to be a standalone buy, than why include a RMAH? Anyone who thinks Blizzard sees D3 as a single purchase is kidding themselves.

I don't know about Uncharted 3, I just know that people who are absolutely in love with and defending D3 to the hilt right now are just as likely to change their opinions as those who dislike it, and generally good opinions turned bad are much, much more damaging than any other kind of PR.

The RMAH is there because of the player made economy in Diablo 2, people were trading items and buying them for real cash, if you were blizzard would you levea this out of the sequel? It's like a licence to print money, give the users a safe way to trade items for real money and take a cut. No matter how bad or good it does it will make them money.

Even if only 5% of the people that bought the game in the first week use the RMAH thats blizzard getting a cut of trades between around 300,000 players. I assume you would class 300,000 players that continue to play as the game failing? Blizzard would see it as a win.

Originally posted by Nirrtix

Please explain to me how D3 is going to goto pay to play model? Hun, they would not. If they did noone would play a Blizzard game again. I know I would not. I do not mind paying to play a game if that was always the intent. If they sold me a game telling me that it was free to play after buying then inacted a monthly fee, it would kill that companies reputation in my and jsut about everyone's eyes. I think you are worrying about something that will not happen.

I never said they were going to a pay to play model. They aren't stupid enough to try anything that blatant; the whole concept of the RMAH is to avoid having to take that final step, but still make money from people over time. Whether it will work or not is an entirely different question, but it is clear that Blizzard is banking on getting more than just the initial sale of the box from it's users.

Originally posted by SlickShoes

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.

Oh y es so playing thorugh all th econtent is not beating the game? becuase it wasnt on hard? WTF is wrong with you playing through all the content,  is playing through all the content.   If hard mode adds nothing new then its not apart of the full game playthough .

Wow dude your just full off  opinions that are just ignorant,  What they did is wow-afy the game made it so everyone can play it by changing everything that made diablo diablo. And if you cant see that then your not a true diablo fan.

To me D3 is a fun game, I wouldn't give it a 10 on my scale, however it's a nice downtime game when your waiting for the next big thing. I enjoy playing with my friends online as well, but I don't have that addiction feeling like I did when I played D1 & D2.

I agree with some players, we waited 12 years for this? Hmmm.

Originally posted by BizkitNL

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.

What is gaming about?  I thought it was about having a game to play?

If you can beat the story and play through the game in 20 hours on average then thats really sad. 

Why do I need to get over myself?  nothing I said is proud or even about me at all.... you make no sense at all...

Originally posted by SlickShoes

The RMAH is there because of the player made economy in Diablo 2, people were trading items and buying them for real cash, if you were blizzard would you levea this out of the sequel? It's like a licence to print money, give the users a safe way to trade items for real money and take a cut. No matter how bad or good it does it will make them money.

Even if only 5% of the people that bought the game in the first week use the RMAH thats blizzard getting a cut of trades between around 300,000 players. I assume you would class 300,000 players that continue to play as the game failing? Blizzard would see it as a win.

Why the RMAH is there, and the benefits of it is an entirely different topic that, frankly, I don't really care about at this time. My point was that the RMAH is still planned, if delayed, and demonstrates a clear goal on making this game a long term investment, not just a one time purchase.

What I would class as being a failure or what you would need for a success is unimportant. I have no idea what the budget for the game was and what the projected profits for it were, and I doubt you do either. The point is that the players can classify it as a success all they want, but unless the company also classifies it as a success, it won't matter how many people love it, it will still be a disappointment to the investors.

Originally posted by LordRelic

Originally posted by SlickShoes

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.

Oh y es so playing thorugh all th econtent is not beating the game? becuase it wasnt on hard? WTF is wrong with you playing through all the content,  is playing through all the content.   If hard mode adds nothing new then its not apart of the full game playthough .

 

Wow dude your just full off  opinions that are just ignorant,  What they did is wow-afy the game made it so everyone can play it by changing everything that made diablo diablo. And if you cant see that then your not a true diablo fan.

I don't care if I am a true diablo fan, I enjoy playing the game, label me whatever you want.

Look, people are moaning about "beating" the game in 20 hours, can you tell me how long it took people to complete diablo 1 and 2 on the easiest difficulty?

Originally posted by sunshadow21

Originally posted by SlickShoes

The RMAH is there because of the player made economy in Diablo 2, people were trading items and buying them for real cash, if you were blizzard would you levea this out of the sequel? It's like a licence to print money, give the users a safe way to trade items for real money and take a cut. No matter how bad or good it does it will make them money.

Even if only 5% of the people that bought the game in the first week use the RMAH thats blizzard getting a cut of trades between around 300,000 players. I assume you would class 300,000 players that continue to play as the game failing? Blizzard would see it as a win.

Why the RMAH is there, and the benefits of it is an entirely different topic that, frankly, I don't really care about at this time. My point was that the RMAH is still planned, if delayed, and demonstrates a clear goal on making this game a long term investment, not just a one time purchase.

What I would class as being a failure or what you would need for a success is unimportant. I have no idea what the budget for the game was and what the projected profits for it were, and I doubt you do either. The point is that the players can classify it as a success all they want, but unless the company also classifies it as a success, it won't matter how many people love it, it will still be a disappointment to the investors.

You brought up the whole RMAH thing, but you dont care to talk about the reasons for it?

I don't even care if you think it's a success or not or if blizzard consider it a success either, I am enjoying it right now, If i am playing something else in a years time then I won't care if its a success or not, and if I am playing it in a year I also won't care because I will be enjoying playing the game.

Originally posted by SlickShoes

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.  Its a money scheme because you have to pay to have an active internet subscription, so yes you do have to pay every month to play this game.  They made it in such a way so that you could not pirate it and that they would have all their data on the servers for all these wonderful ideas, but ultimately its because of the money.  I'm all for them getting their due, but to force people to play their game online, and all the negatives that come with it including single player lag and the cost of an internet connection, it just seems a bit much. 

It didn't take 12 years, it took 6 at best becuase it was scrapped about 6 years ago and they started again. I didn't say it took 12 years, I said we WAITED 12 years, as in the last Diablo game came out 12 years ago...

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 is different because not a single developer who worked on D1 or D2 was involved in D3... and it shows...

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.  Yes, normal difficulty, the STORY of the game was completed in 20 hours, some of us play games for more reasons than to grind gear.  A lot of people out there in video game land really like playing through the story of a 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.  Graphics are objective sure, however, pull up a SC2 screen shot next to a D3 screen shot, you can see one of them does look better...  You didn't read anything I said, but I took the time to read what you did, so I hope you will respect my yellow text and actually read my reply, I never said they were in development for 12 years, none of us said that, we have all stated we've been waiting for the next game for 12 years, and we got 20 hours of story, and a sub par game that honestly looks worse than a free to play copy of itself.

Oh and in closing, I'm sure its fun for you guys... its just not worth my money.

Originally posted by Zekiah

Originally posted by Nirrtix

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, 

So... if that problem were gone you'd give it a 10? That is a fair review? A 10?

The hypocrisy of fanbois and haters around here simply astound me.

/laff

hun I never gave the game a 10 I gave it a 9 so /laff at your own statement.

Originally posted by Nirrtix

Originally posted by Zekiah

Originally posted by Nirrtix

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, 

So... if that problem were gone you'd give it a 10? That is a fair review? A 10?

The hypocrisy of fanbois and haters around here simply astound me.

/laff

hun I never gave the game a 10 I gave it a 9 so /laff at your own statement.

You stated origionally that if you did not have that bug you would have given it a 10.

Then someone points out this fact.

Then you deny this fact?

I'm confused hun.

You  said Diablo 3 is a 10, if only there wasn't this ONE bug that made you restart a zone.  That is what your own words state.