Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Metacritic is surprisingly spot on with this one....

245

Comments

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,211Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by fundayz
    Originally posted by zymurgeist

    Swell, you've just proven you consider opinions that agree with yours a reliable source. Except for all those people who don't always agree with the crowd. For them it's useless.  Especially if they don't immediately fly into a rage if the login servers are down. So what are you going to say when the score starts to rise? Will your opinion of metacritic or your opinion of the game change?

     

    By your logic ANY average rating for anything is meaningless. That is obviously not true. Now, the game IS rated too low and it WILL rise but it will never reach the 9/10 or 10/10 that the latest installment of one the most popular video game franchises of all time should have been. The point many hardcore fans make is that D3 simply does not FEEL or LOOK like a Diablo game. It plays like generic A-RPG; D3 doesnt have the gritty atmosphere or character planning features that made the first two games so memorable. Factor in the online-only play and lack of PvP and you get a product that is simply not true to it's predecessors. 

    And many Hardcore fans completely disagree. So who is right? all of them and none of them. It is the nature of opinions that they are worthless to people who do not share them.  Holding opinions up as the proof of the reliability of opinions is absurd.

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • dubyahitedubyahite Lincoln, NEPosts: 2,483Member
    Oh and let's not forget that a large portion of those zero reviews are olrobably playing the game still. Heavily. Another portion is basing their score off the beta.


    All of those zeroes that are bitching about sever stability? Yeah they are still playing this game. They are probably playing it more than most.

    Shadow's Hand Guild
    Open recruitment for

    The Secret World - Dragons

    Planetside 2 - Terran Republic

    Tera - Dragonfall Server

    http://www.shadowshand.com

  • TardcoreTardcore MinskPosts: 2,325Member
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Tardcore
    Originally posted by jusomdude
    Originally posted by DarkPony
    Originally posted by jusomdude

    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?


    And I don't disagree with your point, damned if you do, damned if you don't. However, maybe these juggernaught companies could try creating N E W games for a change. Instead of just dragging out, dusting off, and tarting up their old doddering whores, time and time again. Maybe then all the horse sh*t we just mentioned would go away. Or at least bring in some fresh horse sh*t for us to wade through in shinny new big boots.

    image

    "Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "

  • AngztAngzt berlinPosts: 230Member

    i love it. how some 16 year old selfproclaimed game critics talk about a game they obviously never played (diablo 2 or even 1)

    diablo 3 has EVERYTHING it should have.

    the athmo is just as it should be, gloomy and dark with a tendance to overpower here and there.

     

    whoever claims that the previous diablo games have been much darker and "more evil looking" or whatnot should maybe play those old parts first ^^

     

    here a few examples:


     

     

    does this look much darker to you than what you know from d3? seriously? it doesn't, does it? :)

     

    so seriously, stop this "mimimi this aint a diablo game" stuff, because it IS.

    i played all the diablo parts, i wasn't a "hardcore fan" before but i surely played em enough to state a judgement on your theories here, and my judgement is: death.

     

     

     

    "believe me, mike.. i calculated the odds of this working against the odds that i was doing something incredibly stupid… and i did it anyway!"

  • DarkPonyDarkPony RotterdamPosts: 5,566Member
    Originally posted by fundayz
    Originally posted by zymurgeist

    Swell, you've just proven you consider opinions that agree with yours a reliable source. Except for all those people who don't always agree with the crowd. For them it's useless.  Especially if they don't immediately fly into a rage if the login servers are down. So what are you going to say when the score starts to rise? Will your opinion of metacritic or your opinion of the game change?

     

    By your logic ANY average rating for anything is meaningless. That is obviously not true. Now, the game IS rated too low and it WILL rise but it will never reach the 9/10 or 10/10 that the latest installment of one the most popular video game franchises of all time should have been. The point many hardcore fans make is that D3 simply does not FEEL or LOOK like a Diablo game. It plays like generic A-RPG; D3 doesnt have the gritty atmosphere or character planning features that made the first two games so memorable. Factor in the online-only play and lack of PvP and you get a product that is simply not true to it's predecessors.
    Originally posted by Tardcore 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.

     

    Nail head, meet hammer

    Aye. Seconded.

  • AngztAngzt berlinPosts: 230Member

    well, there is a saying on the net about you guys:

     

    HATERS GONNA HATE.

     

    hate blizz as much you want, this IS a diablo game. a worthy one. maybe you just never played or understood the 2nd part tho? ever reached hell? or rather, left normal? ever been in the ladder (btw, where is the ladder?? THIS should be a reason to flame, not your faulty points above)

    "believe me, mike.. i calculated the odds of this working against the odds that i was doing something incredibly stupid… and i did it anyway!"

  • Arathir86Arathir86 CanberraPosts: 442Member Uncommon

    Yes, people are probably giving it a negative score on metacritic because of the bad launch, and most of those people will still play the game.

     

    But the 3.6 Metacritic score is the price Blizzard has to pay for such a horrendous launch, and I am dumbfounded why there are so many connection problems when they have two massively succesful online games under their belt.

    You cant tell me that just because Diablo 3 was developed by a differrent team within Blizzard that they werent able to use the same networking code which works fine for Starcraft 2 and WoW, especially when they specifically set up a server management system like Battle.Net for their games.

     

    This just screams of incompetancy to me, and while the game itself may be enjoyable, the DRM and online service thus far has been far from it.

     

    They deserve such low Metacritic score, maybe they will think twice about treating their customers like sheep.

    "The problem with quotes from the Internet is that it's almost impossible to validate their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln

  • dubyahitedubyahite Lincoln, NEPosts: 2,483Member
    OMG the servers are down again 0/10 review on metacritic time for me.

    Shadow's Hand Guild
    Open recruitment for

    The Secret World - Dragons

    Planetside 2 - Terran Republic

    Tera - Dragonfall Server

    http://www.shadowshand.com

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,211Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Tardcore
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Tardcore
    Originally posted by jusomdude
    Originally posted by DarkPony
    Originally posted by jusomdude

    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?


    And I don't disagree with your point, damned if you do, damned if you don't. However, maybe these juggernaught companies could try creating N E W games for a change. Instead of just dragging out, dusting off, and tarting up their old doddering whores, time and time again. Maybe then all the horse sh*t we just mentioned would go away. Or at least bring in some fresh horse sh*t for us to wade through in shinny new big boots.

     Unfortunately our buying patterns don't reflect this. Sequels have always been the safer more profitable route. Hence we get Witcher 2, a very good and sucessful sequel, instead of something completely different from CD Projekt RED. An independent and innovative studio. Entirely new projects are almost always financially riskier.

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • FadedbombFadedbomb Aiken, SCPosts: 2,081Member
    Originally posted by DarkPony
    Originally posted by fundayz
    Originally posted by zymurgeist

    Swell, you've just proven you consider opinions that agree with yours a reliable source. Except for all those people who don't always agree with the crowd. For them it's useless.  Especially if they don't immediately fly into a rage if the login servers are down. So what are you going to say when the score starts to rise? Will your opinion of metacritic or your opinion of the game change?

     

    By your logic ANY average rating for anything is meaningless. That is obviously not true. Now, the game IS rated too low and it WILL rise but it will never reach the 9/10 or 10/10 that the latest installment of one the most popular video game franchises of all time should have been. The point many hardcore fans make is that D3 simply does not FEEL or LOOK like a Diablo game. It plays like generic A-RPG; D3 doesnt have the gritty atmosphere or character planning features that made the first two games so memorable. Factor in the online-only play and lack of PvP and you get a product that is simply not true to it's predecessors.
    Originally posted by Tardcore 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.

     

    Nail head, meet hammer

    Aye. Seconded.

    Pretty much spot on.

    The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
    Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.

  • askdabossaskdaboss LondonPosts: 631Member
    Originally posted by angzt

    well, there is a saying on the net about you guys:

     

    HATERS GONNA HATE.

     

    hate blizz as much you want, this IS a diablo game. a worthy one. maybe you just never played or understood the 2nd part tho? ever reached hell? or rather, left normal? ever been in the ladder (btw, where is the ladder?? THIS should be a reason to flame, not your faulty points above)

    Also remember that a lot of people playing Diablo III will be WoW players (advertisements on WoW, promotional offers....), which has probably the biggest community of whiny, annoying children I've ever seen in a game (and no, you don't have all the swearing in Hello Kitty online - which makes the community probably more mature).

     

    Also:

    http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/351567/Possible-hope-for-this-forum.html

  • jusomdudejusomdude Somewhere, KSPosts: 2,401Member

    I don't get why people are saying this isn't a Diablo game... it plays like a diablo game, it feels like one, it looks like one.

    A duck is a duck, as they say.

     

    Not having the same developers has very little to do with it. The current developers have played the diablo games, and they know them, they just decided to change a few things... and for the better I might add.

  • spizzspizz BlackForrestPosts: 2,587Member

    Understandable that some give 0 points when others give a 10. You would find such strange ratings on mmorpg.com aswell. This is not only a problem about "haters", it is a problem aswell about "boaster" but at the end it is a problem to see a true rating anyway, not even game magazines achieve it always.

    In addition, a lot of consumer give bad ratings if the business modell is not acceptable for that. Not all take this into consideration.

  • solarinesolarine IstanbulPosts: 1,203Member

    Eh, I hardly find myself in agreement with any user-based aggregated ranking. The more users we have, the more sentimental  and extremist these rankings get. I'd say I only care about professional reviews, but it seems they're also becoming as unprofessional as anything... Supply and demand for you.

    And, Diablo 2 better than the original Diablo? No way!

     

  • spizzspizz BlackForrestPosts: 2,587Member

    The best review is from yourself, the so called professional reviews are just used as marketing aswell. Professional reviews are not that neutral either, and they dont include the rating of business model. I think it is good that consumer punish in public ratings if they are not satisfied, either with the game content or the distribution modell/business concept. 

  • IstavaanIstavaan CorkPosts: 1,350Member

    how is diablo 3 not like diablo 2, excluding graphics the gameplay is identitical to diablo 2. it's still an item hunting game, so how is it not the same?

  • odinsrathodinsrath louisville, KYPosts: 814Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jusomdude

    I don't get why people are saying this isn't a Diablo game... it plays like a diablo game, it feels like one, it looks like one.

    A duck is a duck, as they say.

     

    Not having the same developers has very little to do with it. The current developers have played the diablo games, and they know them, they just decided to change a few things... and for the better I might add.

    dude no matter what people are gonna bash it..here there and every other site..blizz worked on it so its 2nd nature and cannon fodder for blizz haters to bash any title they release..i hate wow too for my own reasons..but im not gonna exile a title just cuz its made by blizz..imo what alot of people hate to hear is that no matter how you look at it or twist it ...blizz is the most successful mmorpg maker on the planet...so everyone has grown to hate it and grown to hate anything releated to it

    image

  • AvarixAvarix Chicago, ILPosts: 379Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by dubyahite
    OMG 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.

  • cutthecrapcutthecrap nobusinessofyoursPosts: 600Member
    Originally posted by Fadedbomb

    Just wanted to point this out after someone in another thread stated Metacritic wasn't a reliable source:

     

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo  [8.3]

    ---

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-ii  [8.5]

    ---

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii  [3.6]

     

    Pretty much my thoughts entirely.

     

    Oh, and just for a bit of reference for those of you looking for stronger data =):

     

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-ii  [4.2]

    --

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dead-island  [6.8]

    --

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-3  [3.9]

    --

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect-2  [8.5]

    --

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mass-effect  [8.4]

     

     

    I'm having a hard time finding one "User Rating" I don't disagree with other than Dead Island that I believe should have been a 5.8 instead of a 6.8, but that's because I'm a BIT more critical about zombie based games than others in its genre ;)!

     

     

    Don't worry about any of this If YOU enjoy the game at the end of the day. However, just realize that after everything is said and done Diablo 3 was not the game it should have been. For the fans :|....

    There's a psychological thing called confirmation bias, one of the big errors and blind spots in the human psyche. This is where people consciously and unconsciously will always look for confirmation of their beliefs, tastes, ways of life etc in external sources.

    So when they find external opinion that mirror their own, they start to automatically think 'oh, I agree with it, so that source must be right! Or reliable and trustworthy' and so on.

     

    I think that's what's really playing a role here.

     

    As for metacritic, I kinda question the scores there, because it's way too easy to get manipulated around. But, that's just my scepsis talking. From an objective point of view though, I question that the ratings are representative for the actual quality nor the success or attraction to the player population.

    Examples I can think of: the 2 last MW games got very low user ratings. Yet if it sucked that hugely, the vast group of players that played the second to last one would have almost completely gone when the last MW game appeared. Yet the last MW game made 1 billion dollar revenues within 3 weeks. Eh? Even when people apparently 'en masse' thought MW2 sucked donkey balls? Apparently a huge contingent wasn't persuaded or represented by Metacritic's user ratings.

    Another example I find ME2 and ME3. Sorry, but to really believe that the difference between those 2 games is the difference from 3.9 to 8.5... if people believe that I think I can also sell them that Hitler and Charles Manson were actually saints and that aliens have already conquered the planet in secret.

     

    I'm starting to think the average age on these forums is actually quite low, or people haven't been schooled or trained in objective and critical analysis (which btw isn't the same as complaining or ranting about everything)

  • MardukkMardukk Posts: 1,556Member Uncommon

    Maybe people came into this game with the wrong expectation.  I played D2 when it came out and thought it was a great game.  However, I tried a few other hack n slash diablo style games within the last year and found them to be mind numbingly boring.  Could it be that it's been so long that people's tastes have changed for this type of shallow immersionless (new word!) type of game.  For me I discovered MMO's just after playing D2 at release and never looked back. Hack n slash games just don't cut it anymore. 

     

    I think that it's likely less about how bad D3 is and more that many people have had their tastes change in 12 years and didn't realize it until they played D3.

  • IstavaanIstavaan CorkPosts: 1,350Member
    Originally posted by Mardukk

    Maybe people came into this game with the wrong expectation.  I played D2 when it came out and thought it was a great game.  However, I tried a few other hack n slash diablo style games within the last year and found them to be mind numbingly boring.  Could it be that it's been so long that people's tastes have changed for this type of shallow immersionless (new word!) type of game.  For me I discovered MMO's just after playing D2 at release and never looked back. Hack n slash games just don't cut it anymore. 

     

    I think that it's likely less about how bad D3 is and more that many people have had their tastes change in 12 years and didn't realize it until they played D3.

    ^this

    alot has changed in 12 years.

  • TardcoreTardcore MinskPosts: 2,325Member
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Tardcore
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Tardcore
    Originally posted by jusomdude
    Originally posted by DarkPony
    Originally posted by jusomdude

    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?


    And I don't disagree with your point, damned if you do, damned if you don't. However, maybe these juggernaught companies could try creating N E W games for a change. Instead of just dragging out, dusting off, and tarting up their old doddering whores, time and time again. Maybe then all the horse sh*t we just mentioned would go away. Or at least bring in some fresh horse sh*t for us to wade through in shinny new big boots.

     Unfortunately our buying patterns don't reflect this. Sequels have always been the safer more profitable route. Hence we get Witcher 2, a very good and sucessful sequel, instead of something completely different from CD Projekt RED. An independent and innovative studio. Entirely new projects are almost always financially riskier.

    And is this because sequels really are the safer bet or is it just that buyers aren't given much of a choice when it comes to N E W games. And I'm talking from long established studios, not new fly-by-night ones with shoestring budgets and uncertain futures.

    I'm sure the statistics on people who still shave with straight razors are pretty high in the injury per user percentage when compared to safety razors, but only because there are so fewer of them.

    Or we could use the film industry for an example. Are people queueing up in droves to see these lukewarm rehashed and hollow films this crap factory produces because they love them? Or is it they just want to watch something but only have these poor quality films to choose from?

    image

    "Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "

  • GrinnzGrinnz Utica, NYPosts: 310Member Uncommon

    Diablo 3 is an enjoyable, too bad you people are going to miss out on it, because you listen to other people instead of playing it.

    It's what I did :(

    However, I since got a guest key from a buddy, and now am buying it.....I've played both Diablo, and Diablo 2, and enjoyed both....I listened to too much bad press, and almost missed out on a rather good game....I think it's just sad a few people just go on rants, and tirades over rather trivial things such as DRM, not  having Dark and Gritty graphics (actually it's plenty dark for me, I think the old Diablo games are like that due to engine limitations).

    Anyways, I'm going to enjoy my Diablo 3, you guys enjoy life being angry over nothing.....

    image

  • spizzspizz BlackForrestPosts: 2,587Member
    Originally posted by Mardukk

    Maybe people came into this game with the wrong expectation.  I played D2 when it came out and thought it was a great game.  However, I tried a few other hack n slash diablo style games within the last year and found them to be mind numbingly boring.  Could it be that it's been so long that people's tastes have changed for this type of shallow immersionless (new word!) type of game.  For me I discovered MMO's just after playing D2 at release and never looked back. Hack n slash games just don't cut it anymore. 

     

    I think that it's likely less about how bad D3 is and more that many people have had their tastes change in 12 years and didn't realize it until they played D3.

    Iam sure a part of the players would find Diablo II gameplay boring these days, which was a success in its days. And you are right, time did change, players did change, marketing & business concepts did change.

  • KanethKaneth Posts: 1,922Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Rhianni32

    The only thing I realize is that at the end of the day some people need to have their personal choices confirmed by others. For those of us that have moved on from our high school years we realize we can enjoy what we want without worry about if its cool  or not.

    Amen. My personal choice in videogames is not going to be the same as many other people. For instance, I seem to be one of the few people who didn't like Torchlight at all, and I could really care less about Torchlight 2. It doesn't make the game bad, it's just a matter of personal opinion.

    Critic reviews can be somewhat helpful at times, but folks who base their entire decision making process on the opinions of strangers really need to learn to value their own minds more.

    I can honestly say that I am enjoying the hell out of D3. At the same time, I wasn't under some illusion that the game would ever be anything more than Hack n Slash and not a repackaged D2.

Sign In or Register to comment.