Revenge of the Metacritics: Diablo III Getting Review-Bombed

[Aeshi]

To put it juuuuuust bluntly enough to avoid a low-content warning:

Yes

 

[SilverStrike]

When people are putting 0 reviews screaming 'Max Payne dies at the end' for D3, you know you shouldn't be paying attention to the reviews, frankly.

 

[mental_looney]

Meh I looked at the reviews some mention Day one DLC which there is none of and claims they are never buying another EA product and then there are the ones about max payne and even a few about mass effect 3.

So while there may be a proper opinion in there it's probably drowned out by spam and general rants and rage posts.

 

[Coldster]

As if anyone cares about the user scores of games on Metacritic anyways. Seriously, go to any game that isn't 100% loved by the internet and it will usually be around 4 or 5. Only really great indie games and sports titles seem to get good scores in the user review section. Oh well, it doesn't matter to me in the slightest.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

So, um, server issues require a zero? DRM requires a zero? How about, you know, doing some actual reviewing in your user review? I'm not saying D3 needs a string of 9.0s or borderline perfect scores, but a little objectivity wouldn't hurt anyone. The game runs just fine server issues notwithstanding, the mechanics are properly structured and my one big gripe is a lot of the challenge seems to have been sucked out of the experience.

D3 will undoubtedly be very successful, but part of the reason why is how it's been made highly accessible. ActiBlizz is clearly trying to bring in a new fanbase, while the hardest of the hardcore, those who wrote build manuals at places like JudgeHype or The Phrozen Keep, are going to rightfully ***** at the reduced modularity of the experience.

Even so, it's hard not to look are review bombs and not see entitlement. There's something slightly wrong with my generation, I think, in that most people think angrily demanding things or defacing a public service is going to get them what they want. If you're looking for examples other than the Mass Effect 3 kerfuffle, head on over to CBC News and check out the current student strike movements in Quebec. Canada has some of the lowest registration and higher education-related fees available, coupled with top-tier teaching resources.

What do those idiots do? They ***** and moan. They seem to conveniently forget that while I'm paying 700$ per semester, my buddies south of the border have to pony up two thousand bucks per semester.

Newsflash, review bombers: the Larfleeze Strategy works when you're six years old and below. You're customers, you don't GET to make demands. DRM sucks? Fine, go buy Torchlight 2. Just have the decency to avoid trolling those who bought the game by saying Skidrow's going to find a way to emulate some of Blizzard's server-side tech.

 

[Agayek]

Actually a studio that was aquired by Blizzard and renamed Blizzard North made Diablo 2. Then they got rid of them and took it upon themselves to take way too long to make a bad sequel to it.

And the people in Blizzard North then went on to make Torchlight and Torchlight 2.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

I'm glad none of my games have DRM. :/

 

[nohorsetown]

I like metacritic, because I can sift through the user reviews until I find intelligent arguments for both sides. Of course the zero-bombs are worthless, but so are most of the "professional" reviews. I strongly suspect that a lot of professional reviewers are paid off, in one way or another. So I like user reviews, because I take the time to find the ones that aren't from braying jackasses.

Haven't played Diablo 3, but I suspect I would be disappointed in it. A lot of the non-rabid, level-headed, low-to-middling reviews complain about removal of stat/skill customization. If what they're saying is true, that would be a pretty damn big negative for me. Also, my internet craps out pretty frequently. I do think the online requirement for single player is pretty sleazy. I doubt I'll ever buy the game.

If you're worried about ActiBlizz / Corporate Evil, remember that you can vote with your wallet. Shouldn't the default choice, when confronted with a game that seems really kinda "iffy", be *not* to buy it? Even if it's Diablo? I just think it's kinda funny: from what I've gathered so far, the game seems kinda in-the-middle, some good, some bad, probably not for me. But I bet that a lot of the people frothing with rage against the Draconian Regime will still buy the game (and those who've already bought it will still use the auction house, albeit complaining that they've been "forced"). You can't have it both ways.

 

[Andronicus]

Yeah, because I always rely on Metacritic userscores to determine my purchases. [/sarcasm]

Seriously, who does this? If you want to know about a game, read a proper review, not stupid arbitrary numbers.

As for Diablo III, I'd hardly consider any one review a definitive indicator of how I'll enjoy a game, and especially not those released on launch day (even if he author had an early review copy). I'd wait a bit until the feverish hype and kneejerk nerdrage dies down a bit before getting any sort of objective feedback about the game, and then make a decision.

That said, online-only singleplayer games are retarded, pure and simple, no matter how you want to spin it. I wouldn't say 0/10-worthy, but certainly not "my money-worthy".

snip

Just thought you might want to know, I read through Aprilgold's comments twice, I still have no idea what he's talking about.

I think he's getting confused between "online" and "multiplayer", and doesn't realise that he's the only one in the thread that is.

 

[superbatranger]

I'm against always online (though Diablo III and that kind of game in general don't interest me), but Metacritic bombing is just dumb. Review scores have always been pretty irrelevant to me, but now user reviews in general on sites like Metacritic and Amazon have lost all their credibility.

You gotta admit that some reviews one finds in Amazon are quite funny.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I've never played any of the Diablo series, could someone shed some light on this pasionate hatred for D3? I've just been wondering, did they fuck with the gameplay a lot or something? Really bad story? ORIGIN?

Blizzard has put in a Real-Money Auction House to deter hacking/gold selling things, but have a sub-clause that gives them a percentage of each sale so people are calling them money-grubbing greedy [expletive] [expletive].

Blizzard has implemented the same DRM they used for Starcraft II except in a slightly more harsh manner (Starcraft II prevented you from playing the Skirmish mode without an outside mod if you were offline, but still allowed you to play the campaign; Diablo III spawns campaign things like enemies and loot via the server so without an internet connection you only have half the game) so people are decrying them because of other people who have less-than-solid internet connections.

Blizzard has used a more stylized art direction for Diablo III than the previous two games, which... people are complaining about for some reason.

Blizzard warned gamers that the servers would be bogged down on release day, so when it happened and the servers were down for the better part of yesterday (American at least, I think European/Asian servers were up for most of it) everyone got outraged anyway because... well, it's Blizzard.

I've yet to see any legitimate complaints centered around the game itself and not purely based on the practices of Blizzard surrounding the game. It's fine to not support the company because you don't agree with their decisions, but review-bombing a game because of corporate decisions instead of legitimate gameplay issues is just childish.

The stuff that's in the game amounts to the game. Everything you have listed impacts the game itself or players' ability to use the game at their convenience. If the game required me to stand on one foot while playing, that's something I would like to see included in a review. Like, if Blizzard wasn't paying their employees enough, that would be awful, but it would be tangential to a review of a specific game. Things like the auction house, DRM, online requirements, art direction, and server access are all legitimate criticisms even if you think they are dumb. They are all things that impact the quality of the game itself.

I'm not defending the 0/10 reviews, however. Just pointing out that these are legitimate gameplay issues that affect the player on a practical level.

 

[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.

 

[DustyDrB]

I'm against always online (though Diablo III and that kind of game in general don't interest me), but Metacritic bombing is just dumb. Review scores have always been pretty irrelevant to me, but now user reviews in general on sites like Metacritic and Amazon have lost all their credibility.

You gotta admit that some reviews one finds in Amazon are quite funny.

The funny ones are the reviews that criticize every aspect of the game even though they clearly hadn't played it yet. Such was the case early yesterday with Diablo. Why not just be honest and say you're giving the game a zero because it didn't work when you tried to play it? You actually have a bit of a case there...

 

[StrixMaxima]

What saddens me the most about the whole Diable 3 debacle is that Blizzard is of the FEW companies with enough weight to promote real changes in the gaming industry.

I am sure they could have reached a middle ground between gameplay defense (hack and cheat control) and player defense (DRM-free, not requiring online-only to play the game in its entirety). They have the people and the money to make real revolutions in the business. But it's quite clear that Blizzard is now simply a "big company", the games they make are simply bottom-line generators, and that they could care less about player satisfaction or solid business practices in the gaming industry.

Now, prepare yourselves for a slew of online-only games (that are not MMOs), real-money marketplaces and such.

Every single day, my GOG library seems more and more enticing.

 

[shrekfan246]

1. Um wrong. They did it for greed to line there pockets.

2. Agreed.

3. Personally I dislike the art because it doesn't seem like a Diablo game. Seems to bright and happy not dark and gothic. But this is only a matter of opinion and not something I've complained about as it would be a non issue if the game were actually good. But as the game is shit it is 1 more thing against it albeit a minor thing against the game.

4. Really? No legitimate complaints? Well lets see removal of stat customization and skill trees thereby dumbing down the game. The reason for them doing such is obviously to try and ram the pay-to-win auction house down people's throats forcing them to buy the great equipment to be good in the late game whereas in Diablo 2 you could get by on average or just good equipment if your stats were done right. Now you must get the great stuff to be good and unless you get godly drops you will sooner or later have to give your money to Blizzard.
You may not like people's reasons but you can not honestly deny that people do not have valid reason for hating the game.

I saw a flowchart the other day, and I'm going to use it now because your post is far too brash and banal for me to even bother refuting. Opinions are opinions, etc. etc., what bothers you doesn't bother other people, and the only thing I will bother saying is that the
Auction House is optional.

Spoiler: A fine flowchart for you.

Good day, sir.

 

[silver wolf009]

Metacritic has been a bad joke for years; I still feel bad that the Makers of Fallout: New Vegas got skimped on a bonus because of one review point.

I actually feel the opposite way, because they were going to make my home state into a game, and I would've hated to see it handled by Obsidian. I loved three, but hated New Vegas to the point that I just couldn't finish it.

So sometimes Metacritic's done right by me I suppose. Yay Metacritic!

OT: I see some people saying that this is the only meaningful way to tell Blizzard they don't want the shenanigans they've been pulling with the always on DRM and what not, but I'd say just don't get the game. If it's that big of a thing, which I could see it being, don't give them their sixty dollars. If someone does something you don't want them to do, don't give them your money because of what they did and expect them to stop doing it.

As for the scores themselves, rate the game, rip the practice. Tell them you'd love their product, but again, you're not a fan of the way they're conducting themselves, and don't give them money for it.

 

[Charli]

...Am I the sole individual in the universe that's had no problem with this game so far... I'm starting to feel like it. *Chosen one halo*

I'd certainly understand it if others can't get in but...I'm in the clear, I'm rating it a solid 8 so far in my own head... Enjoyable enough, nothing has blown my mind yet, on nightmare difficulty now... Normal was a bit tame but that was to be expected.

 

[LittleBlondeGoth]

Fairly certain the whole review bombing fad renders Metacritic moot. I only read it for a laugh, not to determine whether or not a game is worth playing.

Personally, I think having to log into a server to play the single player campaign is a dick move, but that doesn't mean the rest of the game is shit and deserves a 0 score. As for the full servers... Anyone who has played an MMO before will know what it's like on a patch day / XPac release day. I just never bothered, always gave it a day or so. Those servers will be up and down more than a tarts knickers, and most likely they'll be laggy with everyone wanting to try the new stuff.

Want to know what a real, honest to God 0 game is? Try that Big Rigs Truck Simulator thing. You know, the one with no collision detection, shoddy graphics, poor grammar and complete disregard for the laws of physics. Go play that, then come back and tell me Diablo 3 or Mass Effect 3 is worthy of a 0.

As far as I'm concerned, we're all well within our rights to say that stuff like Day 1 DLC or compulsory online play are evil and must be destroyed. But to let one thing cloud the rest of the game for us feels... Shortsighted? Rash? Lacking in perspective? My life is not over because I can't log in right now. Not that I've bought the game yet. Because, you know, I'd prefer to wait until it settles down, since there were inevitably going to be teething troubles.