I think comparing Blizzard games to Comic book movies is an excellent comparison. Both really suck but a lot of people like them anyway for reasons unknown.
For every X-Men Origins there is a Sin City. People choose to focus on what they want.
Originally posted by dubyahiteOMG the servers are down again 0/10 review on metacritic time for me.
Not sure why people keep using this as a defence. It's completely warranted since you can't play your single-player game because of it. People have every right to rage.
I was on here for reviews yesterday, since I was considering picking it up. However, this fact alone makes me stay away. I will not support always-online DRM. Especially with servers this bad. This is one of the biggest complaints. I think a lot of the people that bought this game were not like me, and did research, but saw the name and grabbed it immediately. This game sold because of good marketing/IP but will fail because of the model.
And as long as people BUY these online SPRPGs, companies will keep distributing them this way. I bought Skyrim, but you can take it offline easily. No way I am buying Diablo III. (I wasn't all that impressed with Diablo II, though had a blast playing the original.)
Originally posted by dubyahiteOMG the servers are down again 0/10 review on metacritic time for me.
Not sure why people keep using this as a defence. It's completely warranted since you can't play your single-player game because of it. People have every right to rage.
I was on here for reviews yesterday, since I was considering picking it up. However, this fact alone makes me stay away. I will not support always-online DRM. Especially with servers this bad. This is one of the biggest complaints. I think a lot of the people that bought this game were not like me, and did research, but saw the name and grabbed it immediately. This game sold because of good marketing/IP but will fail because of the model.
And as long as people BUY these online SPRPGs, companies will keep distributing them this way. I bought Skyrim, but you can take it offline easily. No way I am buying Diablo III. (I wasn't all that impressed with Diablo II, though had a blast playing the original.)
Diablo 3 isn't a single player game.
Neither is...
Modern Warfare, Halo, Madden, Neverwinter Nights 2, Street Fighter 4, Mortal Kombat, Borderlands, Mass Effect 3, Civilization 4 and 5...
And yet, I don't have to always be online and playing over the internet to play single player in them.
D3 is not an MMO which is really the operative term here. It is a single/multi-player game just like the majority of non MMO games to be released. It should not be required that you be always online to play it.
D3 is an AMAZING game, and metacritic is full of rage reviewers due to RMT and server issues. millions of us are having fun, keep on hatin and trollin all u want.
Originally posted by dubyahiteOMG the servers are down again 0/10 review on metacritic time for me.
Not sure why people keep using this as a defence. It's completely warranted since you can't play your single-player game because of it. People have every right to rage.
I was on here for reviews yesterday, since I was considering picking it up. However, this fact alone makes me stay away. I will not support always-online DRM. Especially with servers this bad. This is one of the biggest complaints. I think a lot of the people that bought this game were not like me, and did research, but saw the name and grabbed it immediately. This game sold because of good marketing/IP but will fail because of the model.
And as long as people BUY these online SPRPGs, companies will keep distributing them this way. I bought Skyrim, but you can take it offline easily. No way I am buying Diablo III. (I wasn't all that impressed with Diablo II, though had a blast playing the original.)
Diablo 3 isn't a single player game.
Neither is...
Modern Warfare, Halo, Madden, Neverwinter Nights 2, Street Fighter 4, Mortal Kombat, Borderlands, Mass Effect 3, Civilization 4 and 5...
And yet, I don't have to always be online and playing over the internet to play single player in them.
D3 is not an MMO which is really the operative term here. It is a single/multi-player game just like the majority of non MMO games to be released. It should not be required that you be always online to play it.
Multiplayer features aren't built into the fabric of those games quite like they are with Diablo 3. Diablo 3 is online-only. If you can deal with it in an MMORPG, if you can deal with it in Path of Exile, if you can deal with it in Tribes Ascend, and if you can deal with it in League of Legends, you can deal with it in Diablo 3. If you truly want to play an ARPG in those rare times where you are away from an internet connection, you can download Torchlight 2 for like 20 dollars.
Maybe a 3.6 is a bit too low of a score, but surely Diablo 3 doesn't deserve more than 6.
It is a massive disappointment IMO
I owned Diablo 1 and played Diablo 2 for ages and loved them.
But Diablo 3 just doesn't cut it in 2012.............sorry Blizzard
What has changed? How does gameplay in 2012 need to be any different from 1999?
Lol are you kidding?
Why don't you play Pong then?
30 years ago might have been fun...........but now I don't think you ll spend 2 seconds on it.
C'mon.
Diablo 2 was fun, D3 is still fun but you could play D2 instead and you wouldn't even notice.........honestly.
Things improves with the time (not just games, everything), Diablo 3 is the same as 12 years ago.........not good enough for a great developer like Blizzard IMO
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?
The answer is rather simple. You have to keep a similar art direction to the initial two games. Lots of greys, blacks, reds, and browns. You have to change the environments. People don't want to be in Tristram in Act 1 and a desert in act 2. When you keep the same pattern it comes off as not knowing what to do differently. What if D2 had simply consisted of going down into a structure for x number of levels like d1? It would have been a massive failure. Instead they introduced new areas, new NPC's, new monsters etc. For D3, look at the fat things that explode into maggots. Those look like WC3 abominations that don't fit in the Diablo Universe.
You also have to keep a similar lore direction while introducing a new story. There really can't be a lot of fan service by bringing back old characters. It makes players feel as if they've already seen this crap. It's like having Chewbacca in the Ep III just for the sake of it. Really the only way to find a new story direction is to look back at what there was. Copy the dialogue style, copy the lore elements, but forge your own story. Now, I don't know what D3's storyline is since I'm not going to buy the game, but the first boss being the Skeleton King already scares me, that they had no idea what they're doing.
Same things can be said for character development. Change the skills, change the classes, but keep the systems that millions of people enjoyed from D2. Couldn't they have had a skill tree + the rune system?
"I will not play it nor any other MMO until they make it possible to obtain the best gear without forcing people to group up to do so." SwampRob
Originally posted by SuperXero89 Diablo 3 isn't a single player game.
Then it is not Diablo. I NEVER played D1 or D2 multi-player. Very glad I did not fork out the cash to play a game I would have thought (being a sequel) to be something it is not.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Metacritic is the biggest joke on the internet. Half of all user reviews should be dismissed out of hand because they are massively biased one way or the other and either give games a 0 or a 10. As a result, no one should take those reviews seriously.
And my God... are there any released games that people on this site actually DO like!? Seriously you guys... it seems like the only activity many of you genuinely enjoy is trashing games on internet forums. It's sad...
Metacritic is the biggest joke on the internet. Half of all user reviews should be dismissed out of hand because they are massively biased one way or the other and either give games a 0 or a 10. As a result, no one should take those reviews seriously.
And my God... are there any released games that people on this site actually DO like!? Seriously you guys... it seems like the only activity many of you genuinely enjoy is trashing games on internet forums. It's sad...
My question is what is going on with "paid" publication reviews. I remember when an average score in a game magazine was 5, about right. But I now rarely see scores below 7 and i see far too many 8 and more. Sure u got to cypher throuhg user reviews but u get a less advertising dollar influenced opinion.
Score inflation has been going on for a while, and I believe it is a mixture of paid reviews (not accusing all of this) and the gaming community adjusting to the inflated scores.
The community has accepted these inflated scores and now see anything below a 7 as a "bad" game and simply trash it or pass it up. What I'd like to see is more sites just using a 5 star system. 5 stars usually avoids this whole inflation issue and achieves the same goal as a 10 pt system. It's much more digestable for the community to see 3 out of 5 as average, 4 out of 5 as good, and 5 out of 5 as outstanding.
Let's take a look at FPS games now... MW 8,6 and MW3 2.2. Pretty much the same game. Not much difference, but still the other one has four times better score.
Big Rigs 4.1 score which is higher than Diablo 3.
No one rates the games as a game nowadays. Nobody rates the damn content and the gameplay experience. The reasons to rate games low are:
DRM, Cash Shop, high price, too different from the earlier games of the series (omg it's not the same series anymore), exactly the same as earlier games of the series (omg its just the same game but with new looks), game tried to appeal to masses went casual and ruined the series. Nobody gives a shit how good is the actual game. Most people just rate it before they have even played it.
Popular mainstream games with some kind of DRM or high sales price always gets rated down because of haters.
Indie games with cheap price tags and no DRM gets high user scores because they have close to 0 haters.
The other interesting phenomenon with Metacritic is how it is a "useful and valuable resource" for the people that are polarised against a game or dev yet a few weeks later it becomes "useless and full of nerd rage" when the same person is polarised the other way.
Currently playing:
EVE online (Ruining low sec one hotdrop at a time)
Gravity Rush, Dishonoured: The Knife of Dunwall.
(Waiting for) Metro: Last Light, Company of Heroes II.
It's threads like this that make me glad I didn't play Diablo 1 or 2. I'm finding Diablo 3 to be a fine game. And from what friends have told me, PvP in Diablo 2 sucked, and was full of cheaters anyway. I'm certain the PvP in D3 will blow D2's PvP out of the water. That being said, the playstyle of the Diablo games in general is very simple minded. I can't see how these types of games could captivate anyone's attention for very long.
Once again, metacritic has no impact on the sales of a game.
Who cares? The people has spoken, Diablo 3 is no good.
I'm pretty sure the people who work at and invest in Vivendi SA and subsidiaries care.
Well I am not one of them. Diablo 3 shows that Blizzard has lost its touch.
The sales figures, already over 3 million copies without a console crutch, say otherwise. Analysts expect over 5 million copies to be sold in the second quarter 2012.
Hey while we're all getting buried in the D3 anti-hype has anyone tried Max Payne 3?
Please don't throw that "3 million without console crutch" out there when they have a 1.4 million crutch instead lol. They gave away 1.4 million copies of the game.
Yes, people that were going to play WoW anyways got a free copy of D3 with the annual pass. If people weren't interested in playing WoW prior to the offer then they have some serious issues if they did the annual pass to get Diablo 3 lol.
So ... congrats... the sales figures say they sold slightly more copies than they gave away.
And Max Payne 3 is pretty sweet. Not the greatest game ever but it's paced about right for the feel of the game and the story is pretty good. Looks good as well. 8/10 imho (So far).
Please don't throw that "3 million without console crutch" out there when they have a 1.4 million crutch instead lol. They gave away 1.4 million copies of the game.
Yes, people that were going to play WoW anyways got a free copy of D3 with the annual pass. If people weren't interested in playing WoW prior to the offer then they have some serious issues if they did the annual pass to get Diablo 3 lol.
So ... congrats... the sales figures say they sold slightly more copies than they gave away.
And Max Payne 3 is pretty sweet. Not the greatest game ever but it's paced about right for the feel of the game and the story is pretty good. Looks good as well. 8/10 imho.
You do raise an interesting point. But at least some of those players would have bought D3 anyways so not counting all of them aren't fair either...
Not sure how we should count this really, because surely some people just wanted a year more in Wow as well. I don't think you could count it fairly either way.
Once again, metacritic has no impact on the sales of a game.
Who cares? The people has spoken, Diablo 3 is no good.
There was a thread here this afternoon with a poll by a poster on the fence about buying it. The poll showed that 80% of people that have actually bought Diablo III like it. The people have spoken. Diablo 3 is good.
Once again, metacritic has no impact on the sales of a game.
Who cares? The people has spoken, Diablo 3 is no good.
There was a thread here this afternoon with a poll by a poster on the fence about buying it. The poll showed that 80% of people that have actually bought Diablo III like it. The people have spoken. Diablo 3 is good.
It shows that 80% of the people that happened to stumble across that one poll and felt like answering it liked the game. Nothing more. Don't take even a few thousand votes here as indicative of the whole.
On the other end of the spectrum, I tend to be leary of major negative votes on metacritic. Look, Mass Effect 3 was a GREAT game ruined by the last 15 minutes or so. the backlash from that caused people to downvote it. EDIT: And no, not entirely undeservedly. Just saying that the game will be forever remembered for a small (if integral) part of it.
Once again, metacritic has no impact on the sales of a game.
Who cares? The people has spoken, Diablo 3 is no good.
There was a thread here this afternoon with a poll by a poster on the fence about buying it. The poll showed that 80% of people that have actually bought Diablo III like it. The people have spoken. Diablo 3 is good.
The poll you are reffering to was spilt about dead even. But that doesn't matter. If you like the game then ignore what the majority is saying about the game.
It's a Blizzard game from an IP with a large fanbase they game away about a million and a half copies and still barely broke the 3mil mark. They gave away about the same number of copies as they sold. We are talking about not only a Blizzard game but a Diablo game so the 1 1/2 million copies sold isn't very impressive.
The reaction around the net has been pretty abysmal. Most simply didn't like the game and the reasons were wide and varried.
What does this mean for those that like and enjoy Diablo 3?
Nothing.
It's a single player game with multi play. If you like the game then you really shouldn't care if the rest of us like it or not. If Blizzard made D3 unplayable because they didn't make as much as they thought they would it would be corporate suicide so I wouldn't worry about that, it was there choice to make the game online only so they are kind of stuck maintaning the servers even if it isn't overly profitable.
Once again, metacritic has no impact on the sales of a game.
Who cares? The people has spoken, Diablo 3 is no good.
There was a thread here this afternoon with a poll by a poster on the fence about buying it. The poll showed that 80% of people that have actually bought Diablo III like it. The people have spoken. Diablo 3 is good.
The poll you are reffering to was spilt about dead even. But that doesn't matter. If you like the game then ignore what the majority is saying about the game.
No, the dead even split was on if someone bought it or not. The people that did buy it, 80% of them liked it.
The point is, the low metacritic score is almost definitely padded by people that didnt buy the game. If you didnt buy the game you can't make a fair rating (and this includes playing the beta)
Comments
For every X-Men Origins there is a Sin City. People choose to focus on what they want.
Once again, metacritic has no impact on the sales of a game.
Diablo 3 isn't a single player game.
Neither is...
Modern Warfare, Halo, Madden, Neverwinter Nights 2, Street Fighter 4, Mortal Kombat, Borderlands, Mass Effect 3, Civilization 4 and 5...
And yet, I don't have to always be online and playing over the internet to play single player in them.
D3 is not an MMO which is really the operative term here. It is a single/multi-player game just like the majority of non MMO games to be released. It should not be required that you be always online to play it.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
OP is a bad troll.
D3 is an AMAZING game, and metacritic is full of rage reviewers due to RMT and server issues. millions of us are having fun, keep on hatin and trollin all u want.
Another one for the op: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/spore [4.7]
I loved Spore
What's wrong with Spore?
I'm really sick of the whole "There's a massive fanbase for X", or "Y would be a WoW-killer if it just had a chance".
There is no massive conspiracy waiting in the MMO playerbase.
There are no "sleeper-agent fans" waiting to convert once the X or Y is unleashed on the world.
Multiplayer features aren't built into the fabric of those games quite like they are with Diablo 3. Diablo 3 is online-only. If you can deal with it in an MMORPG, if you can deal with it in Path of Exile, if you can deal with it in Tribes Ascend, and if you can deal with it in League of Legends, you can deal with it in Diablo 3. If you truly want to play an ARPG in those rare times where you are away from an internet connection, you can download Torchlight 2 for like 20 dollars.
Lol are you kidding?
Why don't you play Pong then?
30 years ago might have been fun...........but now I don't think you ll spend 2 seconds on it.
C'mon.
Diablo 2 was fun, D3 is still fun but you could play D2 instead and you wouldn't even notice.........honestly.
Things improves with the time (not just games, everything), Diablo 3 is the same as 12 years ago.........not good enough for a great developer like Blizzard IMO
The answer is rather simple. You have to keep a similar art direction to the initial two games. Lots of greys, blacks, reds, and browns. You have to change the environments. People don't want to be in Tristram in Act 1 and a desert in act 2. When you keep the same pattern it comes off as not knowing what to do differently. What if D2 had simply consisted of going down into a structure for x number of levels like d1? It would have been a massive failure. Instead they introduced new areas, new NPC's, new monsters etc. For D3, look at the fat things that explode into maggots. Those look like WC3 abominations that don't fit in the Diablo Universe.
You also have to keep a similar lore direction while introducing a new story. There really can't be a lot of fan service by bringing back old characters. It makes players feel as if they've already seen this crap. It's like having Chewbacca in the Ep III just for the sake of it. Really the only way to find a new story direction is to look back at what there was. Copy the dialogue style, copy the lore elements, but forge your own story. Now, I don't know what D3's storyline is since I'm not going to buy the game, but the first boss being the Skeleton King already scares me, that they had no idea what they're doing.
Same things can be said for character development. Change the skills, change the classes, but keep the systems that millions of people enjoyed from D2. Couldn't they have had a skill tree + the rune system?
"I will not play it nor any other MMO until they make it possible to obtain the best gear without forcing people to group up to do so." SwampRob
Who cares? The people has spoken, Diablo 3 is no good.
My gaming blog
Exactly this.
throw in the people raging about having to be online to play an online game, and then the legions of people who simply hate on anything Blizzard.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Metacritic is the biggest joke on the internet. Half of all user reviews should be dismissed out of hand because they are massively biased one way or the other and either give games a 0 or a 10. As a result, no one should take those reviews seriously.
And my God... are there any released games that people on this site actually DO like!? Seriously you guys... it seems like the only activity many of you genuinely enjoy is trashing games on internet forums. It's sad...
Well I am not one of them. Diablo 3 shows that Blizzard has lost its touch.
My gaming blog
I like TERA and Leauge of Legends.
My gaming blog
Score inflation has been going on for a while, and I believe it is a mixture of paid reviews (not accusing all of this) and the gaming community adjusting to the inflated scores.
The community has accepted these inflated scores and now see anything below a 7 as a "bad" game and simply trash it or pass it up. What I'd like to see is more sites just using a 5 star system. 5 stars usually avoids this whole inflation issue and achieves the same goal as a 10 pt system. It's much more digestable for the community to see 3 out of 5 as average, 4 out of 5 as good, and 5 out of 5 as outstanding.
Diablo III worse than Dragon Age II..
Metacritic user scores accurate.
Yepyep.
Let's take a look at FPS games now... MW 8,6 and MW3 2.2. Pretty much the same game. Not much difference, but still the other one has four times better score.
Big Rigs 4.1 score which is higher than Diablo 3.
No one rates the games as a game nowadays. Nobody rates the damn content and the gameplay experience. The reasons to rate games low are:
DRM, Cash Shop, high price, too different from the earlier games of the series (omg it's not the same series anymore), exactly the same as earlier games of the series (omg its just the same game but with new looks), game tried to appeal to masses went casual and ruined the series. Nobody gives a shit how good is the actual game. Most people just rate it before they have even played it.
Popular mainstream games with some kind of DRM or high sales price always gets rated down because of haters.
Indie games with cheap price tags and no DRM gets high user scores because they have close to 0 haters.
The other interesting phenomenon with Metacritic is how it is a "useful and valuable resource" for the people that are polarised against a game or dev yet a few weeks later it becomes "useless and full of nerd rage" when the same person is polarised the other way.
Currently playing:
EVE online (Ruining low sec one hotdrop at a time)
Gravity Rush,
Dishonoured: The Knife of Dunwall.
(Waiting for) Metro: Last Light,
Company of Heroes II.
It's threads like this that make me glad I didn't play Diablo 1 or 2. I'm finding Diablo 3 to be a fine game. And from what friends have told me, PvP in Diablo 2 sucked, and was full of cheaters anyway. I'm certain the PvP in D3 will blow D2's PvP out of the water. That being said, the playstyle of the Diablo games in general is very simple minded. I can't see how these types of games could captivate anyone's attention for very long.
Please don't throw that "3 million without console crutch" out there when they have a 1.4 million crutch instead lol. They gave away 1.4 million copies of the game.
Yes, people that were going to play WoW anyways got a free copy of D3 with the annual pass. If people weren't interested in playing WoW prior to the offer then they have some serious issues if they did the annual pass to get Diablo 3 lol.
So ... congrats... the sales figures say they sold slightly more copies than they gave away.
And Max Payne 3 is pretty sweet. Not the greatest game ever but it's paced about right for the feel of the game and the story is pretty good. Looks good as well. 8/10 imho (So far).
You do raise an interesting point. But at least some of those players would have bought D3 anyways so not counting all of them aren't fair either...
Not sure how we should count this really, because surely some people just wanted a year more in Wow as well. I don't think you could count it fairly either way.
There was a thread here this afternoon with a poll by a poster on the fence about buying it. The poll showed that 80% of people that have actually bought Diablo III like it. The people have spoken. Diablo 3 is good.
It shows that 80% of the people that happened to stumble across that one poll and felt like answering it liked the game. Nothing more. Don't take even a few thousand votes here as indicative of the whole.
On the other end of the spectrum, I tend to be leary of major negative votes on metacritic. Look, Mass Effect 3 was a GREAT game ruined by the last 15 minutes or so. the backlash from that caused people to downvote it. EDIT: And no, not entirely undeservedly. Just saying that the game will be forever remembered for a small (if integral) part of it.
The poll you are reffering to was spilt about dead even. But that doesn't matter. If you like the game then ignore what the majority is saying about the game.
It's a Blizzard game from an IP with a large fanbase they game away about a million and a half copies and still barely broke the 3mil mark. They gave away about the same number of copies as they sold. We are talking about not only a Blizzard game but a Diablo game so the 1 1/2 million copies sold isn't very impressive.
The reaction around the net has been pretty abysmal. Most simply didn't like the game and the reasons were wide and varried.
What does this mean for those that like and enjoy Diablo 3?
Nothing.
It's a single player game with multi play. If you like the game then you really shouldn't care if the rest of us like it or not. If Blizzard made D3 unplayable because they didn't make as much as they thought they would it would be corporate suicide so I wouldn't worry about that, it was there choice to make the game online only so they are kind of stuck maintaning the servers even if it isn't overly profitable.
No, the dead even split was on if someone bought it or not. The people that did buy it, 80% of them liked it.
The point is, the low metacritic score is almost definitely padded by people that didnt buy the game. If you didnt buy the game you can't make a fair rating (and this includes playing the beta)