ALot of people don't like how they have little control over how they character devolops. Your bascally pigeonholed into the same things with every char. Not to mention the gameplay is fairly boring even for a hack and slash title. I bought the game and I wish I didn't get a boxed copy, I want a refund, Torchlight 1 is much more intersting. Torchlight 2 will blow d3 out of the water, maybe not in terms of sales (lots of stupid diablo fanboys out there) but TL2 just seems like a overall superior game, not to mention the fact its going to have a offical mod kit coming shortly after release, it'll have alot more longlivity than d3 will have. If you preorder tl2 on steam you get a free copy of tl1 to play now, or you can gift the tl1 copy to a friend. Its also 20 bucks 1/3rd the price of d3, and its made by the guys who worked on diablo 2 so you know its not going to be as lame as the wowified diablo 3 is.
Blizzard only had the beta be part of act 1, because they wanted to hide how shallow diablo 3 really is, kinda like what funcom did with age of conan, tortage rocked, then you get outside of it, and its like.. WTH happened to that good game I was playing. I love hack and slash titles, but diablo 3 has been the most boring one I have played to date, it doesn't deserve the diablo title, and to this day I think it just has it to get sales.
Hun I am not a fangirl by any means I did not even get the BETA. Frankly you could get a gist of what the game is like from the BETA easily. Why do you wish you did not get a boxed copy? Both versions have no refund. Welcome to the world of videogames! No refunds!
Nirrtix ALPHAs: -Pantheon -Shroud of the Avatar -Camelot Unchained BETAs: -World of Warcraft -City of Heroes -Star Wars Galaxies -Saga of Ryzom -Homeworld -Starcraft II -Warcraft III -Hearthstone -Star Wars The Old Republic -Vanguard Saga of Heroes
and to this day I think it just has it to get sales.
"and to this day", as if it's been out for years and you've been arguing it ever since. Right.
Well, in any case, all of my friends and I have been playing the hell out of it and it's been a good time. I've pulled multiple 12 hour D3 sessions on days off where I had not much else to do.
I haven't been able to play a non-MMO for that long in so many years.
Now I'm off to get my ass handed to me in Hell difficulty.
(laughs) I do not care if they lied or not. Frankly I am not the one complaining about the features. The fact of thte matter is there is no reason to care about either feature. If you are worried about being online all the time well if you are able to afford the game you can afford the internet. If you do not like the RMAH guess what YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE IT!
I remember one guy saying he wanted to use Diablo 3 on the airplane. Guess what many airlines have internet on the planes! I know I could get it for $5 on Southwest. Besides, how do you play Diablo 3 in those cramped seats?!?!
Some people can afford internet just fine; the problem is that the internet that's available isn't any good for a lot of people. Where I live, the best internet available as late as 2 years ago was 3mbps, and it was always disconnecting had poor ping. Only in the last 2 years has the internet here become anything resembling good.
Of course there are also issues related to things like Blizzards servers being offline/laggy, which has nothing to do with the users own internet connection.
It's not so simple as "if you can afford the internet, this should be a non-factor!"
Laggy servers? Maybe the first day or two. I have notices almost no lag playing D3 and I play during offtime and peak times. Try again.
Lag can happen even if both the servers and the users internet are just fine - things like the servers being so far away that it makes the ping skyrocket.. For myself, I play FPS' like Tribes Ascend and TF2 with 40-60 ping, yet the best I can manage in D3 is 200 at best, with 250-300 being the average, with occasional higher spikes. Really not a big deal yet, but if I decide to play a HC character, or once I get to inferno, this could make a huge difference.
There are other issues to consider with always-online single-player gaming as well; what happens years down the road when you want to play D3 but find that the servers are now offline? Alright, so maybe this won't be an issue with a huge game like D3, but imagine now that more companies start copying this model. Soon every game you play will be at the mercy of the companies servers and the reliability of your internet, and many of those games will be unplayable when the servers go offline within a few years (company goes bankrupt, newer game coming out and the company doesn't deem it worth maintaining the old games servers, etc.), making them unplayable from then on.
Imagine being unable to play Baldur's Gate, Fallout, Half-Life, or any of the other many great single-player classics, because they were made in the era of online-always and the servers have long since gone offline - that's the potential future of gaming if this becomes the norm. Every game will be at the mercy of a companies servers and the reliability of your internet (as well as how close you are to their servers - farther away = higher ping), and when that company goes bankrupt, or they release a new game and decide that maintaining the old servers isn't worth it, or what have you, the game then becomes forever unplayable.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
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?
No.
If you think that being made by a new team means it will be bad, why the eff did you wait for it?
You fans of popular games are so spoiled. I'll probably never ever see Heretic III/heXen III done, by the same company or not the same company, yet you manage to whine someone bothered to make a sequel (and a good one, at that) to your stupid game but didn't make it perfect enough...
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.
Sunshadow you're completely wrong.
Forbes and forecasters predicted sales of 4 million in the first year. They've already done 6.3 million in the first month. This is way beyond shareholder expectation, as I should know.... I'm one of them. In addition to this being a fantastic game, I'm making a good deal of return on my money in stock price.
I can link the article if necessary.
Win / Win.
_________________________ It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.
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.
Sunshadow you're completely wrong.
Forbes and forecasters predicted sales of 4 million in the first year. They've already done 6.3 million in the first month. This is way beyond shareholder expectation, as I should know.... I'm one of them. In addition to this being a fantastic game, I'm making a good deal of return on my money in stock price.
I can link the article if necessary.
Win / Win.
Uhhhh... Your stock is down .75 today. You gotta know when to hold'em, and know when to fold'em brother. Though I doubled my money last week by dropping a big chunk on Interplay.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
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.
Sunshadow you're completely wrong.
Forbes and forecasters predicted sales of 4 million in the first year. They've already done 6.3 million in the first month. This is way beyond shareholder expectation, as I should know.... I'm one of them. In addition to this being a fantastic game, I'm making a good deal of return on my money in stock price.
I can link the article if necessary.
Win / Win.
Uhhhh... Your stock is down .75 today. You gotta know when to hold'em, and know when to fold'em brother. Though I doubled my money last week by dropping a big chunk on Interplay.
as an investor you know you don't value a stock based on a single day performance. Let's huddle up again in a year... or better yet after Titan is released.
_________________________ It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.
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.)
I find that after gamers can afford to, and do play Crysis in 1080p on max they really start understanding what graphics are. I think it would be extremely hard to give a top down hacknslash more then 8.5 simply because the graphics are never really as good as it gets.
Hate to break it to you but the game is seriosuly average at best. That is disappointing because they had the game 11 years in development since 2001. Hype > Diablo 3!
I do hate the fact that my ping is almost always 200+. A first for any online game I've played. I only get rubberbanding occasionally..so far it is a minimal..though I feel unnecessary..nuisance.
Outside of this the game is worth the money (though I think $50 is a more reasonable price)...really fun. Graphics are very nice. Good stories..not just the main but all the hirelings tales too. Cinematics are outstanding. Gameplay is the usual addicting Diablo gameplay. I like the skill setup and how you can customize it gradually and for different scenarios. I love that they ditched the town portal scrolls..even though there was no serious lack of them in D2...just one less thing in inventory. To a lesser extent I like that they ditch Identify scrolls too. You spend enough in crafting so i guess they lessen this burden by having identify without having to buy scrolls. Rare/unidentified armor seems much rarer than in D2..which is a good thing..
I could go on...
I do agree that I don't see where the long development time was spent. As nothing extremely different is presented with this game compared to the last one.....but it is still a decent game at any rate. Not phenomenal..but as good as the last with the expected graphical improvements given how it's been 10 years or so.
EDIT: My worst complaint would have to be the goldspammers. I can't even read chat or have a conversation because huge walls of spam get in the way. They really need to get busy on getting them out.
Sure..I can report then block...and I did..for days. Then I relaized the same exact names popping back up the day after I reported and blocked them. Maybe ..I'm wrong...but the block function seems to work for that day only..or until you log off..I guess.
I hope they're getting all the spam reports because it is a seriously problem for chat.
Sad thing...when they offered free diablo 3 for year sub of WOW . They gave WOW gold spammers/sellers free access to this game. I'm sure it was no problem for some goldfarmers to fork over a year sub for a game that already creates their paychecks..and now they can cash in on Diablo3 too. ..a AN
The reviews on Metacritic should never be taken seriously. Most of the people who take the time to do a user review there are either butt-hurt haters or over-enthusiastic fanboys. As a result, you get a lot of 1s and some 10s for popular games. I personally don't think any game I've ever played has been bad enough to deserve a 1 and even some of my favorite games probably don't deserve 10s.
1) Fastest selling PC game ever. Sold 6+ million or something like that...
2) WoW, SWTOR, GW1, GW2, and countless other games require online only play. Why aren't people complaining about those? Diablo is an ONLINE game. You can play by yourself just like you can play WoW or SWTOR by yourself (I did plenty of times). Get over it. The online play is only at a VERY small level for DRM. I perfer Online only because I can assume people aren't hacking/cheating on it nearly as much as in Diablo 2 where you had to hope and pray that your game titled "Legit Only" actually had legit only players joining it...
3) Graphics are fine. Why not go complain about Minecraft graphics? The game is designed to be playable on a large variety of machines. The graphics are designed to fit a set art style and it fits well. If you want realistic graphics walk outside and get some sun?
4) RMT (Real Money Transactions) arent' even in the game yet. Any complaints on this issue are invalid. And complaining about it even after they add it to the game is pointless because if Blizzard didn't do it, other websites would. And those other sites would likely steal your identiy, fill your email with spam, and hack your accounts after attempting to use them.
Things that are actually worth complaining about:
1) Server issues at launch were pretty bad. These were resolved shortly after release.
2) Auction House is broke. This thing is down daily. When it is up, doesn't work very well and is laggy.
3) Achievements are handed out like candy. Getting level 10 isn't really an achievement for 99% of players out there. This is a noob-status concept adopted from WoW I assume.
4) No ladder for Hardcore. VERY little reason to play Hardcore as you have no way to compare, brag, or otherwise associate with other hardcore players. I personally only play Hardcore and I enjoy it, but it would be nice if the product shipped with at least the same features as Diablo 2 had for hardcore.
5) No real chat channels. You can't sit in a chat like in Diablo 2 where people can see your character (again, Hardcore, this made a big Difference)
6) Pretty short story, not enough variety. I've finished Acts 1 - 4 probably 20+ times now on multiple difficulties and the random events are pretty limited. This is an upgrade over Diablo 2 that didn't have them at all, however it would be nice to see MORE of them. It would be nice if they were longer and more involved. I believe the timed dungeon in Act 2 is probably the longest, best event?
That's about all that comes to mind off top of my head.
Well, the game isn't a 1 or 0 unless you have very little uptime. I am not in that boat, but some are.
I'd give it a 4. When it comes to the game itself, it is about a 7, but you throw in the price vs time. Let's see, 12 hrs to finish for $60 when skyrim provides 200+ hours at the same price? Nope, bad value. You add in the fact that it has a more linear story than Starcraft, which is an RTS. You add in their "always online" crap. You add in the fact that it's an E-rated game with an M stamped on the box, and you add in the fact that the story they do have is juvenile and comic-bookish....
And there you have it. Let down of the year!
Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.
2) WoW, SWTOR, GW1, GW2, and countless other games require online only play. Why aren't people complaining about those? Diablo is an ONLINE game. You can play by yourself just like you can play WoW or SWTOR by yourself (I did plenty of times). Get over it. The online play is only at a VERY small level for DRM. I perfer Online only because I can assume people aren't hacking/cheating on it nearly as much as in Diablo 2 where you had to hope and pray that your game titled "Legit Only" actually had legit only players joining it...
You can play all content solo in D3 there is no need for you to team up to do anything it is a solo game with Online multiplayer options....or it should be but D3 actually is a sologame that forces you to always be online no matter of your playstyle.
It does not bother me personally that much since i do not play games while i travel but i can see how it is a problem for ppl who travel a lot and would have liked to play a game to shorten the time.
I do not understand how ppl can come here and honestly claim its ok to have an always online feature and compare it to MMOs or say its the only way to stop cheating it would have been easy to to just lock offline only characters from the online ones and all would have been fine.
The major problem with most user reviews is that players don't seem to know how to review a game. A lot of players will give the game a 0-1 because it's online only and they will not discuss any of the other features of the game. THat's why critic reviews are MUCH bettter than user reviews no matter what you hear from players. Critics try to look at all the good and bad points of a game.
User reviews are usually extremely biased, one sided and only acknowledge bad points (if it is a hater) or only the good stuff (if it is a fanboy). There's no objectivity whatsoever. How can you rely on these reviews?
Originally posted by Souldrainer
Well, the game isn't a 1 or 0 unless you have very little uptime. I am not in that boat, but some are.
I'd give it a 4. When it comes to the game itself, it is about a 7, but you throw in the price vs time. Let's see, 12 hrs to finish for $60 when skyrim provides 200+ hours at the same price? Nope, bad value. You add in the fact that it has a more linear story than Starcraft, which is an RTS. You add in their "always online" crap. You add in the fact that it's an E-rated game with an M stamped on the box, and you add in the fact that the story they do have is juvenile and comic-bookish....
And there you have it. Let down of the year!
So far I have cranked about 60 hours in D3 and I am sure to play at least another 100+ hours. Don't know what you're talking about. Or are you one of those people who knew nothing about Diablo and bought it only to play it on normal loooL?
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
The major problem with most user reviews is that players don't seem to know how to review a game. A lot of players will give the game a 0-1 because it's online only and they will not discuss any of the other features of the game. THat's why critic reviews are MUCH bettter than user reviews no matter what you hear from players. Critics try to look at all the good and bad points of a game.
User reviews are usually extremely biased, one sided and only acknowledge bad points (if it is a hater) or only the good stuff (if it is a fanboy). There's objectivity whatsoever. How can you rely on these reviews?
As someone 'in' the game industry, game reviews are generally not there for 'objectivity'.
People usually do not want objectivity, they want validation that the game they just spent $$$ is the best thing since slice bread.
If you want objectivity, Forbes game is probably the best.
Forbes was the only one calling the game journalism industry out for the whole Mass Effect 3 debacle and the 'entitled' BS.
As for the OP, I doubt it really matters. D3 sold millions and will continue to sell millions. I bought it on day 1 and had fun and will continue to have fun.
No, I do not design games, but companies like Activision/EA/Ubisoft require professionals like myself for more mundane things like SQL/Web/Accounting/Legal etc.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Well, the game isn't a 1 or 0 unless you have very little uptime. I am not in that boat, but some are.
I'd give it a 4. When it comes to the game itself, it is about a 7, but you throw in the price vs time. Let's see, 12 hrs to finish for $60 when skyrim provides 200+ hours at the same price? Nope, bad value. You add in the fact that it has a more linear story than Starcraft, which is an RTS. You add in their "always online" crap. You add in the fact that it's an E-rated game with an M stamped on the box, and you add in the fact that the story they do have is juvenile and comic-bookish....
And there you have it. Let down of the year!
Yeah, but Diablo 3 unlike any classic RPG, was always about running high end maps ad infinitum for gear. I suppose they could have opened up the story but it isnt any less than the first 2 unless you just wanted to run ad infinitum for levels a swell.
Many people did have issues to logg in early and that will affect the games score the first months... Nothing really strange, people who bought it on day one and hardly could play for the first week are a bit upset, particularly some people here who took days of work to play and then couldn´t.
The score will stabilize and be fair a few months from now. New releases often get weird scores but it usually evens out after a while.
But player reviews scores will always be a bit unfair since some people just gives 10s or 1s for one reason or another and the only thing you can do is to give a fair score yourself instead of assuming people will give the game you like a 1 and give it a 10 yourself just for the heck of it.
I havn´t got Diablo myself and therefor havn´t scored it but my friends give it an 8 (well, a few 7s and 9s as well) and that sounds rather fair nto me, good but not perfect.
Well, it certainly isn't a 1 and anyone rating it so is being unfair.
But same can be said for any rating of 9 or above, it's not that either, not by a long shot.
I've spent some time in it and right now, probably a 7 to 7.5, but then I'm not a fan of the genre, and certainly not how this title has evolved from D1.
They basically took the (mostly bad) lessons they learned about gamer's from WOW and incorporated it into D3's design and there is a strong segment of the market that is recoiling from these decisions.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I really do no think people actually understand how ratings are supposed to work.
On a scale of 1 - 10, no game that has ever been made should ever attain a 10. A score of 10 would mean absolutely perfectly flawless to the point where its impossible to improve upon.
Your average game with smooth gameplay and fun storyline like DIablo 3 should probably be sitting somewhere around a 6.5 - 7.5. Time spent in game is fun but the design has many problems. (Class Imbalance, Online DRM, AH crashing, login servers, cut scene glitches, etc.)
Then you have games like SW:TOR and TERA which should probably ranked around the 5 range due to bad game design, lack of depth and content, glitchy mechanics, incomplete "beta" full releases etc.
Even a game like GW2 which I am very much a supporter of probably shouldnt be ranked above a 7 or 7.5 if it releases at the end of the year without any major problems.
The last game I would have given a ranking higher then 6.5 would probably be Everquest. It is over 13 years old now and still to this day I can go back and enjoy deeper and more difficult content then in any modern MMORPG, and the graphical improvements made to the game over the years have allowed it not to fall to far behind its more modern competitors.
I guess what I am getting at is the average critic and player these days is to incompetent to correctly rank games for a number of reasons which vary depending on teh person... On a scale of 1 to 10 a 1 should be the absolute worst possible game ever created. A 5 should be the average rating across the board for average games like Aion, Rift, Warhammer, WoW, ME3, etc..... and a 10 should be unobtainiable yet a goal for all companies to strive for.
Any game that obtains a rating of 8 or 9 should be very rare and almost guarantee the game a "Must Purchase". A score in the range of 8 - 9.5 should be so good that anyone and everyone who plays it will find enjoyment with it.
Comments
Hun I am not a fangirl by any means I did not even get the BETA. Frankly you could get a gist of what the game is like from the BETA easily. Why do you wish you did not get a boxed copy? Both versions have no refund. Welcome to the world of videogames! No refunds!
Nirrtix
ALPHAs:
-Pantheon
-Shroud of the Avatar
-Camelot Unchained
BETAs:
-World of Warcraft
-City of Heroes
-Star Wars Galaxies
-Saga of Ryzom
-Homeworld
-Starcraft II
-Warcraft III
-Hearthstone
-Star Wars The Old Republic
-Vanguard Saga of Heroes
"and to this day", as if it's been out for years and you've been arguing it ever since. Right.
Well, in any case, all of my friends and I have been playing the hell out of it and it's been a good time. I've pulled multiple 12 hour D3 sessions on days off where I had not much else to do.
I haven't been able to play a non-MMO for that long in so many years.
Now I'm off to get my ass handed to me in Hell difficulty.
Lag can happen even if both the servers and the users internet are just fine - things like the servers being so far away that it makes the ping skyrocket.. For myself, I play FPS' like Tribes Ascend and TF2 with 40-60 ping, yet the best I can manage in D3 is 200 at best, with 250-300 being the average, with occasional higher spikes. Really not a big deal yet, but if I decide to play a HC character, or once I get to inferno, this could make a huge difference.
There are other issues to consider with always-online single-player gaming as well; what happens years down the road when you want to play D3 but find that the servers are now offline? Alright, so maybe this won't be an issue with a huge game like D3, but imagine now that more companies start copying this model. Soon every game you play will be at the mercy of the companies servers and the reliability of your internet, and many of those games will be unplayable when the servers go offline within a few years (company goes bankrupt, newer game coming out and the company doesn't deem it worth maintaining the old games servers, etc.), making them unplayable from then on.
Imagine being unable to play Baldur's Gate, Fallout, Half-Life, or any of the other many great single-player classics, because they were made in the era of online-always and the servers have long since gone offline - that's the potential future of gaming if this becomes the norm. Every game will be at the mercy of a companies servers and the reliability of your internet (as well as how close you are to their servers - farther away = higher ping), and when that company goes bankrupt, or they release a new game and decide that maintaining the old servers isn't worth it, or what have you, the game then becomes forever unplayable.
People are blinded by many things, truth is not one of them apparently.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
see some people compare D3 offline to GW2
GW2 is a persistent world mmo ..
EQ2 fan sites
No.
If you think that being made by a new team means it will be bad, why the eff did you wait for it?
You fans of popular games are so spoiled. I'll probably never ever see Heretic III/heXen III done, by the same company or not the same company, yet you manage to whine someone bothered to make a sequel (and a good one, at that) to your stupid game but didn't make it perfect enough...
Sunshadow you're completely wrong.
Forbes and forecasters predicted sales of 4 million in the first year. They've already done 6.3 million in the first month. This is way beyond shareholder expectation, as I should know.... I'm one of them. In addition to this being a fantastic game, I'm making a good deal of return on my money in stock price.
I can link the article if necessary.
Win / Win.
_________________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.
- John Wooden
Reviews are just opinion, you can't get fairness you are operating under an illusion.
Uhhhh... Your stock is down .75 today. You gotta know when to hold'em, and know when to fold'em brother. Though I doubled my money last week by dropping a big chunk on Interplay.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
as an investor you know you don't value a stock based on a single day performance. Let's huddle up again in a year... or better yet after Titan is released.
_________________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.
- John Wooden
I find that after gamers can afford to, and do play Crysis in 1080p on max they really start understanding what graphics are. I think it would be extremely hard to give a top down hacknslash more then 8.5 simply because the graphics are never really as good as it gets.Just saying
Hate to break it to you but the game is seriosuly average at best. That is disappointing because they had the game 11 years in development since 2001. Hype > Diablo 3!
Grim Dawn, the next great action rpg!
http://www.grimdawn.com/
I do hate the fact that my ping is almost always 200+. A first for any online game I've played. I only get rubberbanding occasionally..so far it is a minimal..though I feel unnecessary..nuisance.
Outside of this the game is worth the money (though I think $50 is a more reasonable price)...really fun. Graphics are very nice. Good stories..not just the main but all the hirelings tales too. Cinematics are outstanding. Gameplay is the usual addicting Diablo gameplay. I like the skill setup and how you can customize it gradually and for different scenarios. I love that they ditched the town portal scrolls..even though there was no serious lack of them in D2...just one less thing in inventory. To a lesser extent I like that they ditch Identify scrolls too. You spend enough in crafting so i guess they lessen this burden by having identify without having to buy scrolls. Rare/unidentified armor seems much rarer than in D2..which is a good thing..
I could go on...
I do agree that I don't see where the long development time was spent. As nothing extremely different is presented with this game compared to the last one.....but it is still a decent game at any rate. Not phenomenal..but as good as the last with the expected graphical improvements given how it's been 10 years or so.
EDIT: My worst complaint would have to be the goldspammers. I can't even read chat or have a conversation because huge walls of spam get in the way. They really need to get busy on getting them out.
Sure..I can report then block...and I did..for days. Then I relaized the same exact names popping back up the day after I reported and blocked them. Maybe ..I'm wrong...but the block function seems to work for that day only..or until you log off..I guess.
I hope they're getting all the spam reports because it is a seriously problem for chat.
Sad thing...when they offered free diablo 3 for year sub of WOW . They gave WOW gold spammers/sellers free access to this game. I'm sure it was no problem for some goldfarmers to fork over a year sub for a game that already creates their paychecks..and now they can cash in on Diablo3 too. ..a AN
The reviews on Metacritic should never be taken seriously. Most of the people who take the time to do a user review there are either butt-hurt haters or over-enthusiastic fanboys. As a result, you get a lot of 1s and some 10s for popular games. I personally don't think any game I've ever played has been bad enough to deserve a 1 and even some of my favorite games probably don't deserve 10s.
1) Fastest selling PC game ever. Sold 6+ million or something like that...
2) WoW, SWTOR, GW1, GW2, and countless other games require online only play. Why aren't people complaining about those? Diablo is an ONLINE game. You can play by yourself just like you can play WoW or SWTOR by yourself (I did plenty of times). Get over it. The online play is only at a VERY small level for DRM. I perfer Online only because I can assume people aren't hacking/cheating on it nearly as much as in Diablo 2 where you had to hope and pray that your game titled "Legit Only" actually had legit only players joining it...
3) Graphics are fine. Why not go complain about Minecraft graphics? The game is designed to be playable on a large variety of machines. The graphics are designed to fit a set art style and it fits well. If you want realistic graphics walk outside and get some sun?
4) RMT (Real Money Transactions) arent' even in the game yet. Any complaints on this issue are invalid. And complaining about it even after they add it to the game is pointless because if Blizzard didn't do it, other websites would. And those other sites would likely steal your identiy, fill your email with spam, and hack your accounts after attempting to use them.
Things that are actually worth complaining about:
1) Server issues at launch were pretty bad. These were resolved shortly after release.
2) Auction House is broke. This thing is down daily. When it is up, doesn't work very well and is laggy.
3) Achievements are handed out like candy. Getting level 10 isn't really an achievement for 99% of players out there. This is a noob-status concept adopted from WoW I assume.
4) No ladder for Hardcore. VERY little reason to play Hardcore as you have no way to compare, brag, or otherwise associate with other hardcore players. I personally only play Hardcore and I enjoy it, but it would be nice if the product shipped with at least the same features as Diablo 2 had for hardcore.
5) No real chat channels. You can't sit in a chat like in Diablo 2 where people can see your character (again, Hardcore, this made a big Difference)
6) Pretty short story, not enough variety. I've finished Acts 1 - 4 probably 20+ times now on multiple difficulties and the random events are pretty limited. This is an upgrade over Diablo 2 that didn't have them at all, however it would be nice to see MORE of them. It would be nice if they were longer and more involved. I believe the timed dungeon in Act 2 is probably the longest, best event?
That's about all that comes to mind off top of my head.
Well, the game isn't a 1 or 0 unless you have very little uptime. I am not in that boat, but some are.
I'd give it a 4. When it comes to the game itself, it is about a 7, but you throw in the price vs time. Let's see, 12 hrs to finish for $60 when skyrim provides 200+ hours at the same price? Nope, bad value. You add in the fact that it has a more linear story than Starcraft, which is an RTS. You add in their "always online" crap. You add in the fact that it's an E-rated game with an M stamped on the box, and you add in the fact that the story they do have is juvenile and comic-bookish....
And there you have it. Let down of the year!
Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.
You can play all content solo in D3 there is no need for you to team up to do anything it is a solo game with Online multiplayer options....or it should be but D3 actually is a sologame that forces you to always be online no matter of your playstyle.
It does not bother me personally that much since i do not play games while i travel but i can see how it is a problem for ppl who travel a lot and would have liked to play a game to shorten the time.
I do not understand how ppl can come here and honestly claim its ok to have an always online feature and compare it to MMOs or say its the only way to stop cheating it would have been easy to to just lock offline only characters from the online ones and all would have been fine.
The major problem with most user reviews is that players don't seem to know how to review a game. A lot of players will give the game a 0-1 because it's online only and they will not discuss any of the other features of the game. THat's why critic reviews are MUCH bettter than user reviews no matter what you hear from players. Critics try to look at all the good and bad points of a game.
User reviews are usually extremely biased, one sided and only acknowledge bad points (if it is a hater) or only the good stuff (if it is a fanboy). There's no objectivity whatsoever. How can you rely on these reviews?
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
As someone 'in' the game industry, game reviews are generally not there for 'objectivity'.
People usually do not want objectivity, they want validation that the game they just spent $$$ is the best thing since slice bread.
If you want objectivity, Forbes game is probably the best.
Forbes was the only one calling the game journalism industry out for the whole Mass Effect 3 debacle and the 'entitled' BS.
As for the OP, I doubt it really matters. D3 sold millions and will continue to sell millions. I bought it on day 1 and had fun and will continue to have fun.
No, I do not design games, but companies like Activision/EA/Ubisoft require professionals like myself for more mundane things like SQL/Web/Accounting/Legal etc.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Yeah, but Diablo 3 unlike any classic RPG, was always about running high end maps ad infinitum for gear. I suppose they could have opened up the story but it isnt any less than the first 2 unless you just wanted to run ad infinitum for levels a swell.
The game has a 89% rating on Metacritic.
I think thats fair for a game with the flaws Diablo 3 has.
Stability, Online connectivity, Subpar Crafting/item drops, Grossly overpowered classes (DH/Wiz), Missing features.
Playing: Nothing
Looking forward to: Nothing
Many people did have issues to logg in early and that will affect the games score the first months... Nothing really strange, people who bought it on day one and hardly could play for the first week are a bit upset, particularly some people here who took days of work to play and then couldn´t.
The score will stabilize and be fair a few months from now. New releases often get weird scores but it usually evens out after a while.
But player reviews scores will always be a bit unfair since some people just gives 10s or 1s for one reason or another and the only thing you can do is to give a fair score yourself instead of assuming people will give the game you like a 1 and give it a 10 yourself just for the heck of it.
I havn´t got Diablo myself and therefor havn´t scored it but my friends give it an 8 (well, a few 7s and 9s as well) and that sounds rather fair nto me, good but not perfect.
Well, it certainly isn't a 1 and anyone rating it so is being unfair.
But same can be said for any rating of 9 or above, it's not that either, not by a long shot.
I've spent some time in it and right now, probably a 7 to 7.5, but then I'm not a fan of the genre, and certainly not how this title has evolved from D1.
They basically took the (mostly bad) lessons they learned about gamer's from WOW and incorporated it into D3's design and there is a strong segment of the market that is recoiling from these decisions.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I really do no think people actually understand how ratings are supposed to work.
On a scale of 1 - 10, no game that has ever been made should ever attain a 10. A score of 10 would mean absolutely perfectly flawless to the point where its impossible to improve upon.
Your average game with smooth gameplay and fun storyline like DIablo 3 should probably be sitting somewhere around a 6.5 - 7.5. Time spent in game is fun but the design has many problems. (Class Imbalance, Online DRM, AH crashing, login servers, cut scene glitches, etc.)
Then you have games like SW:TOR and TERA which should probably ranked around the 5 range due to bad game design, lack of depth and content, glitchy mechanics, incomplete "beta" full releases etc.
Even a game like GW2 which I am very much a supporter of probably shouldnt be ranked above a 7 or 7.5 if it releases at the end of the year without any major problems.
The last game I would have given a ranking higher then 6.5 would probably be Everquest. It is over 13 years old now and still to this day I can go back and enjoy deeper and more difficult content then in any modern MMORPG, and the graphical improvements made to the game over the years have allowed it not to fall to far behind its more modern competitors.
I guess what I am getting at is the average critic and player these days is to incompetent to correctly rank games for a number of reasons which vary depending on teh person... On a scale of 1 to 10 a 1 should be the absolute worst possible game ever created. A 5 should be the average rating across the board for average games like Aion, Rift, Warhammer, WoW, ME3, etc..... and a 10 should be unobtainiable yet a goal for all companies to strive for.
Any game that obtains a rating of 8 or 9 should be very rare and almost guarantee the game a "Must Purchase". A score in the range of 8 - 9.5 should be so good that anyone and everyone who plays it will find enjoyment with it.
Diablo 3 is possibly the most overhyped game in history.