Revenge of the Metacritics: Diablo III Getting Review-Bombed

[Thoric485]

Journalists and critics didn't put any pressure on Blizzard for needlessly inconveniencing their players, so gamers feel they need to take matters in their own hands.

It's a form of consumer protest, nothing shocking about it. Metacritic's a good target, since most fans don't give a crap about it, but publishers/developers like to tout it.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Just curious, does anyone go purely by the score on metacritic, glance at a game they've never heard of, see 'metacritic - 88' and lay down fifty bucks?

Or do most people actually look a bit further, read the reviews, realise it's past the launch day now, disregard all those complaints, and look for a review that actually mentions the gameplay?

I'm personally not actively pleased with the DRM, but as a WOW player, I'm used to it, and I can't understand all the people saying it's not as good as D2, I think they're blinded by their own rage. To me, in every way, they've improved on D2 (which I'd hope for, considering how long it's been, but still...)

To say it's worse in every way than D2 suggests you've not actually played it, just read an article about DRM and are raging about a game you'll never play.

There's a consumer review thing called reevoo I think, where you actually have to have purchased something to post a review on that item, and I think perhaps metacritic could do with something like that. Not sure if Amazon is limited to only people who've bought it from there, I'm guessing not judging by past events like the Jordan and Peter Andrea reviews.

Hell, I can't stand Simon Cowell and what he's done to the music industry, but I think it's futile to just write reviews for everyone he manages saying they're shit, it won't achieve anything.

 

[Indecipherable]

Game is incredible fun.

 

[Chunga the Great]

Must......contain.....laughter

Good, now maybe Blizzard won't pull such ridiculous BS again

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Metacritic is useless. Gamers complain too much. Diablo 3 is a joke.

There you go, I summed everything up.

 

[Gitty101]

Gee-wiz Batman, you mean Metacritic is being used to bomb the user review score of a recently released popular game?

It sure is Robin, who could be behind such an original and dastardly trend?

 

[predatorpulse7]

Bombing Metacritic is a childish reaction but one that stems from real disappointment with D3 and Blizzard. You don't bomb games you don't care about and Blizzard just gave a huge middle finger to everybody that cared about this franchise by going the Ubi AC2 route, always online SINGLEPLAYER.

Think about these three words "always online singleplayer". If someone had said these to me in the mid 90's, I would have thought it a huge joke. Nowadays it's apparently a business practice and guess what, the sheeple are supporting this(just look at how many copies were bought in the first few hours even though people knew what Blizzard were up to) so much that it will become more common in the future of gaming.

It's one thing when a bunch of wankers like Ubi do always online single because everybody knows what huge a-holes they are. But when a respectable company like Blizzard, that doesn't have Ubi's "track record", supports a stupid policy like this in one of its biggest releases ever, it's basically validating it and inadvertedly sending a message to the industry.

A sad day for the industry IMO, no matter how much this game sells.

 

[irani_che]

I think it's sad that the zeroes will probably be deleted even though people have a right to be angry about not being able to play a single-player game offline. They warned about this before release! I don't care, people should be able to use whatever they purchased.

And if I buy a Halo title without owning an Xbox, I should give it a zero for not being able to play it on a PS3, because there's really no reason I shouldn't be able to play it on a PS3 except for the fact that they didn't make the game that way and I knew ahead of time?

Get real.

I think it's sad that the zeroes will probably be deleted even though people have a right to be angry about not being able to play a single-player game offline. They warned about this before release! I don't care, people should be able to use whatever they purchased.

This does not justify a zero score. Especially since it is NOT news. Especially since D3 is obviously NOT an offline game.

Game doesn't work = 0

I don't have a problem with the score, honestly. I do wonder if all the real issues about the actual game are real too. I've never been very clicky, so I don't know much about the legacy.

How much gaming culture has changed in just 8 years. You know the same thing happened when WoW went live? Exact same thing.

Except it didn't get review bombed, because gamers weren't so militarized that they were already waiting, pitchforks in hand, to pounce on the game for ANY inconvenience, however minor.

And it is minor. You're going to have this game forever. You can play it for years. One day's worth of server crashes is beyond miniscule in comparison.

you dont have it for years
you have it for as long as the servers are there, as soon as you lose the servers or a connection to them the disc is a frisbe

 

[lapan]

you dont have it for years
you have it for as long as the servers are there, as soon as you lose the servers or a connection to them the disc is a frisbe

Diablo 1 and 2s servers are still up, i'd say chances are high this will stay for a long time as well. Not that it makes the always online okay in any way :/

 

[lapan]

I think it's sad that the zeroes will probably be deleted even though people have a right to be angry about not being able to play a single-player game offline. They warned about this before release! I don't care, people should be able to use whatever they purchased.

That's dumb. They told them that it would be online-only, end of. YOU DO NOT GET to buy it and then complain about it being online only.

That's like me buying an electronic device that uses AA batteries (clearly marked on the box) and then giving it a zero because all I have is 9V.

"Developers should all bend to my will." No, developers get to do whatever the hell they want, and then you get to choose if you want to buy it. That's how it works in every other industry, that's how it works here.

"But other industries bend to the majority's will!" Yep. However, you're not the majority.

You don't void your right to criticism when you buy a game. It may give you a weaker case, but if you don't voice your problems with a product, how are they gonna learn from it?

 

[lacktheknack]

I think it's sad that the zeroes will probably be deleted even though people have a right to be angry about not being able to play a single-player game offline. They warned about this before release! I don't care, people should be able to use whatever they purchased.

That's dumb. They told them that it would be online-only, end of. YOU DO NOT GET to buy it and then complain about it being online only.

That's like me buying an electronic device that uses AA batteries (clearly marked on the box) and then giving it a zero because all I have is 9V.

"Developers should all bend to my will." No, developers get to do whatever the hell they want, and then you get to choose if you want to buy it. That's how it works in every other industry, that's how it works here.

"But other industries bend to the majority's will!" Yep. However, you're not the majority.

You don't void your right to criticism when you buy a game. It may give you a weaker case, but if you don't voice your problems with a product, how are they gonna learn from it?

I'll tell you how they WON'T learn from it... getting money for doing it "wrong".

It goes beyond weakening your case, it destroys it outright, because buying the game with pre-announced problems says "I may or may not have problems with this product, but it's nothing I can't live with." When a AAA developer looks for criticism, it's for the sole purpose of "How can I make more people buy my next product?" AAA devs do not do it for the art, or because of goodwill, they do it for money. Thus, they'll ignore people who buy the product in spite of pre-announced "features"/problems, because clearly they'll buy another product with the same features (why wouldn't they? They demonstrate no willpower). If they're fishing for new customers, they'll ask people who DIDN'T buy the product why they didn't. That's who they listen to.

Obviously, a fan uprising is the exception to this, but guess what "hot topic" never gets a fan uprising? (Hint: Ubisoft didn't suffer fan uprisings, only boycotts.)

EDIT: I should clarify that unforseen issues (like bugs or Ubisoft's infamous bait-and-switch) is a completely different matter entirely. I'm speaking in terms of pre-announced things. ie. Blizzard announced publicly that Diablo 3 would be online-only.

 

[malestrithe]

What's stopping me from getting it is not the poor reception or the always on DRM. What's stopping me is that all my interest in the franchise went away about 2004.

Had Diablo III come out in 2007, I would have snapped it up. But the company chose to make their cash cow WoW better and neglected other series.

 

[jklinders]

Not so very long ago I would put nearly as much stock in user reviews as I would the gaming press. This was before I had found a couple of writers whose opinions matched mine at a rare few websites with proper integrity.

All the Metacritic user score is good for is seeing which game is the most controversial which is not the same as knowing if it is good. If these children keep it up then Metacritic will simply pull the user review out altogether for the useless piece of flamewar tripe it has become.

Honestly folks, people can decide for themselves whether they like certain DRM schemes. I don't need their help with that. Hate the DRM? Write the publisher, tell them they lost a sale and why. Don't forget to actually have the stones to not buy their product though. A boycott that is not followed up on is toothless.

 

[lapan]

I'll tell you how they WON'T learn from it... getting money for doing it "wrong".

It goes beyond weakening your case, it destroys it outright, because buying the game with pre-announced problems says "I may or may not have problems with this product, but it's nothing I can't live with." When a AAA developer looks for criticism, it's for the sole purpose of "How can I make more people buy my next product?" AAA devs do not do it for the art, or because of goodwill, they do it for money. Thus, they'll ignore people who buy the product in spite of pre-announced "features"/problems, because clearly they'll buy another product with the same features (why wouldn't they? They demonstrate no willpower). If they're fishing for new customers, they'll ask people who DIDN'T buy the product why they didn't. That's who they listen to.

Obviously, a fan uprising is the exception to this, but guess what "hot topic" never gets a fan uprising? (Hint: Ubisoft didn't suffer fan uprisings, only boycotts.)

EDIT: I should clarify that unforseen issues (like bugs or Ubisoft's infamous bait-and-switch) is a completely different matter entirely. I'm speaking in terms of pre-announced things. ie. Blizzard announced publicly that Diablo 3 would be online-only.

Still, even that crticism is better than none at all. And at least a part (probably a small one in comparison) of those complaining about it really hasn't bought the game.

 

[Soopy]

Its a 5/10 game at best.
In such an "entitled" society, its bizarre how quickly people will praise something purely because of its creator or title.

 

[Mikeyfell]

What was the last game that didn't get review bombed?

Seriously, I'm betting it was hopelessly average, and the only reason nobody hated it is because nobody cared.

 

[Spearmaster]

The game works great now, saying its a failure because of a rocky first few hours is like cancelling your internet/cable for good because it doesn't magically hook its self up the split second you order it, people don't do that, why do it with D3...maybe the DRM issue? Having to be online to play a game is nothing new. Heard of an MMO? What about all the multiplayer games people enjoy online only? Those must be horrible to, go bomb them. I do feel for the people out in the sticks that don't have reliable internet, I was one of them for years it sucks but to all the other people complaining about the always online when they are always online anyway...Dig in your pockets and actually buy a PC game for once in your life.

I say that because I personally know people like that, they do exist and will bash a game because they cant DL it and play for free, sorry for outing all you pirates out there (not really)

I have no problem with a game company requiring authentication to play a game, I also don't have a problem if you refuse to buy it on those grounds. I DO have a problem with people that are whining about having to be online that say they wont support the game giving it bad reviews based on that or any false reason they can come up with, Especially when a lot of those people are gonna be playing and enjoying the game in a few weeks anyway when it stops being "cool" to bash D3 for being online.