Revenge of the Metacritics: Diablo III Getting Review-Bombed

[IamLEAM1983]

Here's something odd. It's called a personal opinion.

I like Diablo III. Mind-blowing, isn't it? The classes mesh well together, the skills are all useful in certain circumstances, put some time into it and you do recover the old sense of possibility you had with traditional skill tree builds. Even so, if the current system still pisses you off, turn on Elective Mode in the game's options. There you go, here's your summons-only Witch Doctor.

Wanna hear something really fucked up? I can judge the game on its own merits, too, and not get bogged down by technical issues we'd been warned of ahead of time. Yes, I timed out twice during my latest sessions, but I don't care. It's obvious the servers are in their growing pains, and it'll take some time for a sense of "normal" traffic to actually form.

I hate DRM as much as anyone else, but that sixty bucks still feels well spent, to me. Do you know why? That's largely because Torchlight can't hold a candle (heh) to Diablo. Both are made by competent people who obviously know their way around a hack-and-slash, but Torchlight is utterly lifeless.

Something about the art direction, the voice acting, the story structure and the classes themselves just comes together into a bland morass that fails to contain my interest. On the other hand, there's something about Diablo III that has me coming back.

Yeah, call me a sheep if you want. Call me a zealot or an apologist, too. My very personal opinion is that D3 is a good game. Does that negate anyone's right to review-bomb the shit out of it? Of course not. If you're disappointed, say so. Just don't act so surprised when others say they've found some enjoyment in it. You might have the right to review-bomb the game, but that still is a childish reaction.

Especially considering how critic reviews and user reviews are clearly separated. Critics are average players too, in their off time. So when I see a Metacritic page where the official reviews are in the green and the user reviews are in the red, I roll my eyes.

Like that's going to affect the game's sales. Again - you have the right to voice your disappointment, but bombing any game is childish, not to mention that there's nothing in this world that warrants a full zero (except maybe Big Rigs, but that's another story).

 

[veloper]

Especially considering how critic reviews and user reviews are clearly separated. Critics are average players too, in their off time. So when I see a Metacritic page where the official reviews are in the green and the user reviews are in the red, I roll my eyes.

Those critics are people who don't play for fun, but to get their paycheck, so not your average gamer at all. The biggest difference is that they have publishers to keep happy, unlike us.

The metacritic user score is the vote of the people. That's it's value.

Yes, many gamers exaggerate on both ends of the spectrum with zeros and tens, but they do average out.
Official reviews are too generous with their scores. The average user scores have thusfar always been more reasonable.

 

[shintakie10]

The difference is Diablo is a single player game with a multiplayer component. So, why should I be always online for a function I will never use? Why should I have to restart my single player campaign three times just because their servers are shitty? There is no justification good enough to excuse it. It is an inherently broken aspect of the game.

Anyway, I see two good things coming out of this. One is that more people will be aware of the broken aspects of Diablo III before they consider dropping 60-100 nonrefundable dollars on it. Knowledge is the best weapon against consumer-hating tactics like this.

Two, is that it will most likely weaken the strong publisher support of Metacritic, so then hard-working developers don't get cheated out of bonuses for getting an 84 instead of an 85.

I think your problem is that you dont understand what diablo 3 is. Diablo 3 is NOT a single player game. Diablo 3 is a multiplayer game, period.

'

No it's not. There's no real argument here, you're just simply wrong.

If there's a single player function, and the levels are designed around single players, it's a single player game. That makes always-online inexcusable.

Except there isn't a single player function. There's a solo function. You can choose to play D3 without anyone else, much like you can choose to play WoW without anyone else. This does not make it a single player game.

 

[shintakie10]

The difference is Diablo is a single player game with a multiplayer component. So, why should I be always online for a function I will never use? Why should I have to restart my single player campaign three times just because their servers are shitty? There is no justification good enough to excuse it. It is an inherently broken aspect of the game.

Anyway, I see two good things coming out of this. One is that more people will be aware of the broken aspects of Diablo III before they consider dropping 60-100 nonrefundable dollars on it. Knowledge is the best weapon against consumer-hating tactics like this.

Two, is that it will most likely weaken the strong publisher support of Metacritic, so then hard-working developers don't get cheated out of bonuses for getting an 84 instead of an 85.

I think your problem is that you dont understand what diablo 3 is. Diablo 3 is NOT a single player game. Diablo 3 is a multiplayer game, period.

'

No it's not. There's no real argument here, you're just simply wrong.

If there's a single player function, and the levels are designed around single players, it's a single player game. That makes always-online inexcusable.

Except there isn't a single player function. There's a solo function. You can choose to play D3 without anyone else, much like you can choose to play WoW without anyone else. This does not make it a single player game.

The difference is I can say I want no one in my game in Diablo III. "Solo Function" Just means Single Player. Diablo III isn't an MMO.

Except you have to be online to play that single player mode. I don't mean you need an internet connection so they can authenticate you Assassins Creed style. You literally have to be online because the vast majority of the game is on a server, not your computer. D3 is the closest you can get to an MMO without actually bein an MMO.

Once again, solo play.

 

[veloper]

The difference is Diablo is a single player game with a multiplayer component. So, why should I be always online for a function I will never use? Why should I have to restart my single player campaign three times just because their servers are shitty? There is no justification good enough to excuse it. It is an inherently broken aspect of the game.

Anyway, I see two good things coming out of this. One is that more people will be aware of the broken aspects of Diablo III before they consider dropping 60-100 nonrefundable dollars on it. Knowledge is the best weapon against consumer-hating tactics like this.

Two, is that it will most likely weaken the strong publisher support of Metacritic, so then hard-working developers don't get cheated out of bonuses for getting an 84 instead of an 85.

I think your problem is that you dont understand what diablo 3 is. Diablo 3 is NOT a single player game. Diablo 3 is a multiplayer game, period.

'

No it's not. There's no real argument here, you're just simply wrong.

If there's a single player function, and the levels are designed around single players, it's a single player game. That makes always-online inexcusable.

Except there isn't a single player function. There's a solo function. You can choose to play D3 without anyone else, much like you can choose to play WoW without anyone else. This does not make it a single player game.

Why are you guys focussing on the singleplayer so much?

In the good old days, such a dungeon crawler with maximum party sizes of 4 and no world PVP, would have been capable of running on private servers.

Other than including DRM to tie up the players, there's no good reason for Diablo 3 to have all the limits of an MMORPG, when it clearly isn't one.

 

[Arina Love]

The difference is Diablo is a single player game with a multiplayer component. So, why should I be always online for a function I will never use? Why should I have to restart my single player campaign three times just because their servers are shitty? There is no justification good enough to excuse it. It is an inherently broken aspect of the game.

Anyway, I see two good things coming out of this. One is that more people will be aware of the broken aspects of Diablo III before they consider dropping 60-100 nonrefundable dollars on it. Knowledge is the best weapon against consumer-hating tactics like this.

Two, is that it will most likely weaken the strong publisher support of Metacritic, so then hard-working developers don't get cheated out of bonuses for getting an 84 instead of an 85.

I think your problem is that you dont understand what diablo 3 is. Diablo 3 is NOT a single player game. Diablo 3 is a multiplayer game, period.

'

No it's not. There's no real argument here, you're just simply wrong.

If there's a single player function, and the levels are designed around single players, it's a single player game. That makes always-online inexcusable.

Except there isn't a single player function. There's a solo function. You can choose to play D3 without anyone else, much like you can choose to play WoW without anyone else. This does not make it a single player game.

No you can't choose to play wow without anyone else. There will always be other people and party content regardless. Big difference from D3, where whole game is solo and if you want you can play with others.

 

[Someone Depressing]

I didn't like the game. No, I don't want to play online 100%, no, I don't want to become involved in your stupid market-economy, no, I don't want to play this game - can I played Diablo II instead?

This is like Dragon Age II all over again, to the point where it was permanently removed from Steam, I think.

I know, I can just solo-play, but I seem like I'm missing alot, when I have a niggling doubt in the back of my AMAZING brain that there's jack-shit in the multi-player.

 

[Odbarc]

Couldn't they at least have only 'blip' amounts of online merely to get the information needed to play, then disconnect from the servers to play laglessly?
And then merely scorn these specific characters from interacting with the RMAH or any other trade or multiplayer or achievement?

 

[newwiseman]

They score is that way because the game launched Tuesday and the servers were not any semblance of stable until Thursday. The score will improve over time but having to connect to a server to play and dealing with lag spikes is a major annoyance.

 

[enriquetnt]

Is NOT ok to force people to be online to play, first of all is NOT gonna stop piracy (theyr playing the game right now for all i know and if they dont theyr gonna be playing it very soon) and second are they forgetting about laptops?, half the world uses them now, and theyr certainly powerful enoug to run the game, but no, you CANT play the game you bought LEGALLY whit your own money unless you are at home or have some potentially expensive 3g or 4g mobile connection? thats NOT fair, and near inscontitutional if you ask me, i bought the game i should be able to play it, how i want, where i want.

also metacritic has to star lookin for a new median sistem to grade stuff, is silly that this game has 3.3 score they know it, we know it, EVERYBODY knows it, it hurts theyr credibility, there are mathematical sistems that shave off obvious over and underscores to keep things logical.

 

[Gamergeek25]

Is NOT ok to force people to be online to play, first of all is NOT gonna stop piracy (theyr playing the game right now for all i know and if they dont theyr gonna be playing it very soon) and second are they forgetting about laptops?, half the world uses them now, and theyr certainly powerful enoug to run the game, but no, you CANT play the game you bought LEGALLY whit your own money unless you are at home or have some potentially expensive 3g or 4g mobile connection? thats NOT fair, and near inscontitutional if you ask me, i bought the game i should be able to play it, how i want, where i want.

also metacritic has to star lookin for a new median sistem to grade stuff, is silly that this game has 3.3 score they know it, we know it, EVERYBODY knows it, it hurts theyr credibility, there are mathematical sistems that shave off obvious over and underscores to keep things logical.

Its to try out the real money ah which is quite new to the gami industry never heard of it before so this was an attempt at trying an innovative thng. Also you do have the option of not buying it.

 

[Snake Plissken]

Server issues, DRM, and auction house aside, yeah, the game is still pretty shitty. No skill tree? Seriously? I just "unlock" abilities now? Lovely. Oh, and attribute points are gone? Fuck it, who cares, it's not like people who play Diablo want to BUILD A FUCKING CHARACTER.

...oh...wait.

 

[Alterego-X]

The fact that they already announced these issues earlier, is no excuse at all for them.

Maybe since the previous audience-fuckery before this one involved a studio blatantly lying about the content of their game, and that was still considered "controversial", people are starting to get the impression that anything less than that should automatically get a free pass.

Yeah, we knew that it's going to be a "technically always multiplayer game with large single player elements". So what? At least they are not legally guilty of false advertising, I guess that's already something to be proud of nowadays. Congratulations Blizzard, you produced a piece of shit in an honest way.

But it's still a horrible design choice, and if it's that important for people, it should still be represented in it's average score. Just because they had the audacity to openly flaunt this flaw before release, that doesn't make it into an untouchable part of the game that isn't allowed to be criticized.