Zero Punctuation: Diablo 3

[Calibanbutcher]

This review sums up why I don't want to play Diablo 3. I can still respect why others like it, though. Although... I part of me still doesn't understand the MASS appeal or why Blizzard uses it's endless resources to make THIS vs. ANYTHING ELSE IMAGINABLE.

6.3 million retail copies sold within 24 hours of release. Anything else you don't understand?

I can only assume Yahtzee loved this game, since he makes a point of invalidating most of his criticisms during the end credits. He just knows no one wants to listen to him not complain.

We must have watched different reviews then.
He said, that he does not get the appeal of dungeon crawlers, and that the leveling, whilst being addictive, does not a great game make.
He only said, that he managed to get the controls to almost work properly and that he was actually able to play the game on his laptop.
Whoop-de-friggin-do.
His complaints:
1.Game is too easy.
2.Aquiring trousers not his cup of tea.
3.Fighting becomes a routine, aka boring.
4.Always online sucks. So do latency issues.
5.Does not get Dungeon Crawlers.
6.Does not ger randomly created dungeons.

End credits:
He managed to fix the controls.
Laptop managed to do a fine job of running D3
Why don't enemies simply give you their pants?

Sooo, what review exactly were you talking of?
Since it is very clear that he had more than enough points to critizise, and in the end, he makes it very obvious, that dungeon crawlers are not getting in his pants any time soon...

So you've never watched a Yahtzee review before?

Hurhurhur, what a witty and clever comeback.
But had he loved the game, he would have heaped praise on it like no-ones business, or simply decided to propose (Saint's Row 2?).
But he did not. Therefore, it stands to reason, that he did not actually "love" the game.
He didn't rip it apart, but that doesn't mean that he loved it, especially since, and I know I am repeating myself here, he does not like dungeon crawlers.
It might be possible that he likes it somewhat, but he does not LOVE it.
Did I make myself clear now, or are you going to ignore everything I said once more, in favour of a witty remark.

 

[Random Fella]

snipe

Rubbish, you can't know a game fully from the gameplay footage
I've played the game and it is very different to the other two combat wise, and difficulty wise
You can't make a full judgement of a game and simply say 'oh it's shit' when you haven't even tried it yourself, that's just your own biased opinion and really provides no argument

 

[Grospoliner]

Since you have no idea what you're talking about, consider this conversation finished.

 

[Undeadpool]

It's always fun to read the forum after Yatzee gives a popular game a bad review.

You mean all the people chiming in fully agreeing to prove "they ain't a part of the SYSTEM!!!!"

 

[Slowking]

First of all it baffles me that some people don't seem to understand, that Yahtzee is a video game reviewer in the same way that the Nostalgia Critic is a movie reviwer. His reviews are not (mainly) meant to help you decide which games to buy, but for comedy
So you can't except an indepth review like you get on IGN. That is not what this is.

@Diablo3

Always online? Well screw that.
Blizzard, if you are worried, that people might cheat and thus kill the auction house, well you did a bang up job. Countless people got their shit stolen. You really protected your economy there.
But even if that had worked. What kept you from making an offline single player mode, that can't tranfare items into the online game? Right, nothing except greed. You figured if everybody had to be online anyway, they would stumble over the real money auction house eventually and line your pockets.
Well I don't want to play online. I have to deal with stupid people on a regular basis in my real life. My free time I would like to spend alone or with friends, thank you very much.
I should not have to suffer through lag, server outages, etc. just because you are greedy. I already payed 50? for a half assed game. That should be more than enough.
There are a lot of other games out there, that offer way more for that kind of money and where the makers don't try to bleed me slowly with microtransactions.

 

[[REDACTED]]

Yahtzee,
Review Dear Esther.

That was relevant. And you do realize that if he did review it he'd almost certainly tear it to pieces, right?

 

[reachforthesky]

It's always fun to read the forum after Yatzee gives a popular game a bad review.

You mean all the people chiming in fully agreeing to prove "they ain't a part of the SYSTEM!!!!"

Pretty much. I especially love the reviews of Nintendo games where he and his fans preemptively strike at all of the invisible drooling Nintendo fans only they can see.

 

[spaceinvaderj]

Diablo 3

This week, Zero Punctiaion reviews Blizzard's latest click-fest Diablo 3.

Watch Video

GRAMMAR NAZI PROTOCOL INITIATED.
Good work on the review, Yahtzee. Reading through the 'Lore' of Diablo, it's a good but weird storyline.
Will there be a Diablo 4 or are Blizzard going to go all out for Warcraft 3?

CAPTCHA: brand spanking new. Well, this is an insult! I have been here for a good while!

 

[Rainforce]

Please Ben, don't use photos of spiders in your videos, they are very frightening.

Painful for you to watch too?

The minute he said he was playing as a witch doctor I silently pleaded for him not to go overboard, but I was wrong, oh so wrong.

I was eating something at that time and suddenly I saw the tarantula. I said okay, don't pay any attention, he uses this photo of the spider in his videos from times to times. But he was showing that thing for two whole minutes.. Mercy!

how do you people SURVIVE on the internet?
I mean, trauma and all that cool shit is really something. I have my own fair share, thanks.
But I will never complain about them being shown or talked about or misjudged in media, because frankly, whatever was shown here is neither tangentially related to me OR reality. (doesn't stop me from raging about everything anyways, though : D )
it's just a fucking picture. also: face your fears, running away makes them MUCH worse, etc.
(I was insanely afraid of spiders as well, for years, before I got tired of killing/letting someone kill them over and over, and have some more respect now. Living in a basement is good therapy, especially if spiders hang on the ceiling above your head when you try to sleep)

Also well...another good ZP episode, I guess. XD

EDIT: also people can NEVER respect all phobias, no matter what. There's things like xylophobia, fear of wooden things/trees. "so yeah, let's build everything from metal in here then, because we want to respect people". Well damn, there's a phobia for that as well.
(cheap but good example)

 

[MrGalactus]

Uhh..why?

 

[JPH330]

I find it incredibly ironic that I just got an error message when I tried to watch this video.

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

I could be wrong, but I think part of the idea of randomly generated dungeons is, besides replayability, is that your experience will be different than your friend's experience so you can stand around the water cooler comparing.

I think the main reason is that proceedurally generated dungeons saves the developer huge amounts of money that they can then reinvest...into their own pockets.
You don't actually compare notes on the room layout, do you?

Actually the point of the procedurally generated terrain is to make it different for each playthrough, like playing a "new game". Considering Diablo is a series about playing through many many times, having random layouts is a good thing.

However, to stay on topic, Diablo 3 decided to throw most of that out the window, along with many of the other features from the Diablo franchise (like quality and addictiveness) and instead Blizzard released this tripe. It's too bad, but in a way it's also good. It means that I won't be spending another 12 years playing one game...

 

[Abedeus]

I still don't get why people who didn't play any of the sequels review THIRD game in the series. That's like reviewing Lord of the Rings: Return of the King without watching or reading previous chapters.

OK, take issue with this. Ignoring the fact the rest of this post could be summarised "With I like Blizzard and Diablo 3 and this is why everyone who dislikes it is wrong", claiming you can't review a game without playing the games that came 12 years before it is just bias at it's highest.

If someone posted in Yahtzee's Skyward Sword review that his opinion was invalid because he didn't play A Link to the Past on the SNES, you wouldn't accept that argument for shit, even LESS if it was to the first Zelda game from 86. From what I remember of Diablo 2, Diablo's soul gets destroyed at the end, I don't recall that being explained in Diablo 3? The storylines aren't even sequential as far as I can see, so it's really not like the Lord of the Rings example.

Defend the game you like all you like, but claiming you have to play the preceeding games is fanboyism at it's highest. I know because -I- have that response to some of these ZP reviews, but I stop myself from saying it.

Forgot to check Escapist for few days, so meh.

First, thanks for incorrectly marking me as a fanboy because I like Diablo series. I don't like Blizzard that much. Never played Starcraft, didn't like WoW and I hate what it did to many players who play games and expect instant gratification for no effort.

Second - Zelda games aren't connected as sequels, moron. They are "alternative realities" or "timelines". They don't have a plot connected in some specific, rigid order.

Consider playing oh, I don't know, Mass Effect 3 without playing any other game series. Or ME 2, since EA kind of made ME3 so it appealed more to new people than long-time fans.

"What the hell, who's this Shepard guy, what are Reapers, what are we talking about, who are those blue aliens, why is that guy limping, what is going on?!"

"You need to play the first game to fully understand..."

"FAAANBOOOOOYYYYY"

Also, why aren't you banned for insulting me? I thought mods were more trigger-happy around here.

 

[Abedeus]

Always online? Well screw that.
Blizzard, if you are worried, that people might cheat and thus kill the auction house, well you did a bang up job. Countless people got their shit stolen. You really protected your economy there.

Not one account with authenticator, which is free, was compromised. Only accounts who were keylogged and unprotected were "hacked".

But even if that had worked. What kept you from making an offline single player mode, that can't tranfare items into the online game? Right, nothing except greed. You figured if everybody had to be online anyway, they would stumble over the real money auction house eventually and line your pockets.

I AM UNEDUCATED AND I THINK EVERYTHING IS OUT TO GET ME!!!

There are files server-side that are not client-side for protection against duping, cheats and hacks. Client has only ability to read them once connected to server. You can't get those files and use them to make a hack without hacking the server itself, which is a LOT of effort and risk compared to potential gains.

Well I don't want to play online. I have to deal with stupid people on a regular basis in my real life. My free time I would like to spend alone or with friends, thank you very much.
I should not have to suffer through lag, server outages, etc. just because you are greedy. I already payed 50? for a half assed game. That should be more than enough.
There are a lot of other games out there, that offer way more for that kind of money and where the makers don't try to bleed me slowly with microtransactions.

Microtransactions are optional and only among gamers. Game is not half-assed only because it requires you to play online to protect everyone from unfair advantages of cheaters.

Luckily, they don't need you or your money. Kind of sad that biased and uninformed reviews are ruining image of a great game.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

So Yahtzee do you get paid to not finish and not properly review games now?

Are you simply just a comedian?

It takes less than 20 hours to complete Diablo III on Normal mode, and you seriously didn't complete it? I get Skyrim and Final Fantasy, but really?

Also, it doesn't really make sense to critique a game on things simply because you didn't explore the options and key binding menus.

This was a very poor review, I don't care if you hated Diablo, but honestly you should really have beaten this one man...it wasn't very long.

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

Microtransactions are optional and only among gamers. Game is not half-assed only because it requires you to play online to protect everyone from unfair advantages of cheaters.

Luckily, they don't need you or your money. Kind of sad that biased and uninformed reviews are ruining image of a great game.

Which "great" game were you referring to? Diablo 3? The game that relied on the coat tales of its predecessors to make its ginormous sales and the one that has destroyed everything about the previous games for the "hope" that Blizzard will milk you for more money?

Kind of sad that the bias is strong in reviewers and fanboys alike. Yahtzee seemed informed to me, but was definitely a lot "nicer" on the game than I would have been, considering its quality level (the lack thereof I am referring to). The online direction is not to prevent "cheaters" despite what you wish to think (as evidenced by the proliferation of cheaters already existing...). It's to make it more likely that you will put yourself into their auction house and give Blizzard a little more money.

There is nothing redeeming about the current iteration of the series. The "soul" of Diablo left with the developers of Blizzard North and what is left is but a gaping husk with the same name and the impetus of making Blizzard money rather than making a great game and have people give you money for it.

It's just to bad they pulled an Activision and drove the quality of a once great series into the dirt. (See Guitar Hero for another example of this).

I have never been more disappointed in a game than with the release of Diablo 3.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

I still don't get why people who didn't play any of the sequels review THIRD game in the series. That's like reviewing Lord of the Rings: Return of the King without watching or reading previous chapters.

OK, take issue with this. Ignoring the fact the rest of this post could be summarised "With I like Blizzard and Diablo 3 and this is why everyone who dislikes it is wrong", claiming you can't review a game without playing the games that came 12 years before it is just bias at it's highest.

If someone posted in Yahtzee's Skyward Sword review that his opinion was invalid because he didn't play A Link to the Past on the SNES, you wouldn't accept that argument for shit, even LESS if it was to the first Zelda game from 86. From what I remember of Diablo 2, Diablo's soul gets destroyed at the end, I don't recall that being explained in Diablo 3? The storylines aren't even sequential as far as I can see, so it's really not like the Lord of the Rings example.

Defend the game you like all you like, but claiming you have to play the preceeding games is fanboyism at it's highest. I know because -I- have that response to some of these ZP reviews, but I stop myself from saying it.

Forgot to check Escapist for few days, so meh.

First, thanks for incorrectly marking me as a fanboy because I like Diablo series. I don't like Blizzard that much. Never played Starcraft, didn't like WoW and I hate what it did to many players who play games and expect instant gratification for no effort.

Second - Zelda games aren't connected as sequels, moron. They are "alternative realities" or "timelines". They don't have a plot connected in some specific, rigid order.

Consider playing oh, I don't know, Mass Effect 3 without playing any other game series. Or ME 2, since EA kind of made ME3 so it appealed more to new people than long-time fans.

"What the hell, who's this Shepard guy, what are Reapers, what are we talking about, who are those blue aliens, why is that guy limping, what is going on?!"

"You need to play the first game to fully understand..."

"FAAANBOOOOOYYYYY"

Also, why aren't you banned for insulting me? I thought mods were more trigger-happy around here.

Sorry, what? Insulting you? By saying your argument is biased on your liking of Diablo? Well blow me down, I am terribly sorry please forgive my heinous disregard for your genteel feelings. Wheras you calling me a moron because you didn't follow my example is just A-OK?

Well let's tread gently to avoid hurting your feelings some more.

Let's start with the Zelda and, helpfully, use your hilarious Mass Effect conversation as a base

"Who the hell is Ganon/The Butcher? What's the Triforce/Black Soulstone"

"You need to play the previous games to understand"

"Really? Seems to explain it fairly well in game"

"Well, yes. I guess it does. Hmm."

Of course, I could only be referring to the plot when I compared the two of them, Zelda doesn't have a running timeline or anything (HINT: I can't be bothered to find it now, but there is one, and you know how important it is to understanding each game? It isn't important in the slightest)

Now let's carry on and examine the Mass Effect example AGAIN to properly illustrate how you seemed to not understand what point I was trying to make

"What the hell, who's this Shepard guy, what are Reapers, what are we talking about, who are those blue aliens, why is that guy limping, what is going on?!"

"You need to play the first game to fully understand..." (ALTERNATIVE: Read the handy codex included in the game.. wow, this example really was poorly selected)

"Hey, I'm not sure I like the shooting mechanic-"

"YOU DIDN'T PLAY THE FIRST ONE YOU DON'T GET AN OPINION!"

Now, this is probably where our thoughts diverge, YOU appeared to in your post express the view you can't review a game without playing the preceeding ones. I believe it is possible to review a game without playing the preceeding one on the basis of it's a game.

Also while we're going with the Mass Effect 2 example, everyone who played it on the PS3 didn't get to play ME1.

Hope that didn't insult you too bad.

 

[Breywood]

There's something else I'm disappointed with. A distinct lack of fanboy rage. I was hoping several D3 kiddies would come charging valiantly to rescue the most precious game they've been waiting years for and all of its vaunted improvements that put all other games to shame. This has happened for other games, but this thread seems quite vacant of the one thing I was really (and guiltily) hoping to see.

It probably has its improvements, but they also lost quite a bit of cred where they could have easily gained it.

 

[Zero_ctrl]

I cringed every time he said Die-ab-lo.
It's DEE-ab-lo.

Although I'm pretty certain that I'm not the first to bring this up. Whatever.