I would not use Metacritic, They have alot of games under rated which should not be.
Most of the games they have on low review I have tried and there not as bad as they make it sound and or near what review score they gave it. ( Again just my opinion)
Maybe a 3.6 is a bit too low of a score, but surely Diablo 3 doesn't deserve more than 6.
It is a massive disappointment IMO
I owned Diablo 1 and played Diablo 2 for ages and loved them.
But Diablo 3 just doesn't cut it in 2012.............sorry Blizzard
What has changed? How does gameplay in 2012 need to be any different from 1999?
People's taste, experience and expectations have changed. if it didn't then we would simply be happy playing the same game over and over with slightly upgraded graphics year after year. i.e Jet Set Willy 2012.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
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 ....
1) why make a new thread?
2) You hand pick and choose a few titles, and then claim they are spot on? They are spot on in YOUR world, but the world and overall opinions of EVERYONE ELSE and even THE MAJORITY OF GAMERS WHO DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN METACRITIC-LIKE RATING SYSTEMS OR WHO ARE INVESTED INTERNET GAMING COMMUNITY FEEDBACK.
3) The game has been out for less than two days. Don't be so quick to jump the gun and claim your the spokesman for "fans". That's a broad term, and it's borderline trolling to talk about it as factual.
4)I don't even own Diablo 3. Games seemed fun to me. It's so apparent to see that this is a popularity contest, and it just being cool and hip to hate on Bioware and Blizzard. You haven't played a game worthy of such a low score like 3/10.
5) Rating system is dumb. Like all statistics and studies they are easily manipulated to prove a point. I could go scout metacritic for certain games with certain ratings to build my own case. but what would be the point? Metacritic doesnt pull in all types of gamers. There is a great silent majority out there who dont use internet forums, who will love Diablo 3 without knowing much about it prior. Those people are fans too. Nobody here is going to express their views.
If the opinions on gaming forums reflected real life opinions Madden and Call of Duty wouldnt be best selling franchises and WoW would have been long dead.
Wonder what the score is by people who werent die hard diablo 2 fans, and by people who arent just butthurt over the servers being down. Those two types of people are worthless for real, honest reviews.
Maybe a 3.6 is a bit too low of a score, but surely Diablo 3 doesn't deserve more than 6.
It is a massive disappointment IMO
I owned Diablo 1 and played Diablo 2 for ages and loved them.
But Diablo 3 just doesn't cut it in 2012.............sorry Blizzard
What has changed? How does gameplay in 2012 need to be any different from 1999?
People's taste, experience and expectations have changed. if it didn't then we would simply be happy playing the same game over and over with slightly upgraded graphics year after year. i.e Jet Set Willy 2012.
It's also like if you look at the transition from D1 to D2...
We went from a game with...
1. Three classes that basically shared all the same abilities but were just "better" at certain things.
2. Exclusively dungeon environments in exception for the town.
3. Essentially one graphical and cultural theme throughout the entire game (gothic).
4. No "server-side" characters which resulted in people being able to hack the game with a simple client side trainer.
To a game with...
1. Five classes that all had unique abilities.
2. Varied environment including several outdoor environments.
3. Multiple graphical and cultural themes that you get to experience throughout the game, such as Egyptian and Mayan themes.
4. Online play over Battle.NET with server-side characters in addition to traditional single player with client side characters. This really cut down on cheating (if you don't believe this, you didn't play D1) and still allowed people to play single player.
There's just so much there that changed. D2 was in almost every way bigger, badder, and better than D1. But D3 is extremely similiar to D2 and even offers less in some cases.
The ironic thing is that I'm almost certain D3 will get a metascore in the 90's or upper eighties, while D2 had a metascore significantly less than D1 despite improving on almost every aspect of D1.
Wonder what the score is by people who werent die hard diablo 2 fans, and by people who arent just butthurt over the servers being down. Those two types of people are worthless for real, honest reviews.
Were I to score it, I would give it an 8. I think that's fair.
It's a very fun game and I'm really enjoying it, but I don't think it's much of an improvement over its predecessor. And the whole "always online" thing really does detract from the single player experience. I mean, this is the first time I've ever rubber banded while playing a single player game lol.
If I were to score D3 I would give it a 3. I haven't played it or even seen a video of it being played. I think i saw a screenshot but that might be Torchlight 2. The reason I would give it a 3 is because there is no pvp. I don't find challenge in exploiting stupid AI's or whatnot. Players are the only real challenge. Also, I dislike all aRPG games since I consider them boring click fests.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now! I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
The blockbuster movie hit of 2012 isn't a remake or a sequel.
Explain to me how it isnt a sequel? Its a sequel to multiple movies at once but it surely is a sequel.
I would just call it a movie in the same franchise as the others.
Because it really isn't a direct sequel to any of the other movies...it's more of a "spin-off." Calling it a sequel, would be like calling "The Justice League" a sequel to "Superman."
If I were to score D3 I would give it a 3. I haven't played it or even seen a video of it being played. I think i saw a screenshot but that might be Torchlight 2. The reason I would give it a 3 is because there is no pvp. I don't find challenge in exploiting stupid AI's or whatnot. Players are the only real challenge. Also, I dislike all aRPG games since I consider them boring click fests.
Don't yah think it's just a bit unfair to rate a game you haven't ever played ?
I mean...I've been pretty harsh on D3 for all the crap they are pulling, but I still admit it's a fairly decent game.
Diablo 3 gets a 3.6, Mass Effect 3 gets a 3.9, and Dragon Age 2 gets a 4.2? That sounds an awful lot like heaps of fanboys nerdraging over how their game wasn't what they thought it would be, or are we honestly saying those games are worse than:
Any time a highly anticipated title is released, you're going to have people with incredibly unrealistic expecations, and those people will always be disappointed when they actually start playing said game. I couldn't imagine waiting 11 years for Diablo 3, and from that perspective, I don't blame people for having unrealistic expectations, but I don't see how any responsible reviewer could give this game any less than an 8 out of 10.
If I were to score D3 I would give it a 3. I haven't played it or even seen a video of it being played. I think i saw a screenshot but that might be Torchlight 2. The reason I would give it a 3 is because there is no pvp. I don't find challenge in exploiting stupid AI's or whatnot. Players are the only real challenge. Also, I dislike all aRPG games since I consider them boring click fests.
Don't yah think it's just a bit unfair to rate a game you haven't ever played ?
I mean...I've been pretty harsh on D3 for all the crap they are pulling, but I still admit it's a fairly decent game.
Certainly it is unfair, but that is why you need to be wary of metacritic. I'd also give League of Legends a 3 because I hate MOBA games. I don't even know what MOBA stands for and I can't seem to make an acronym for "Lots of idiotic mobs running into each other" out of the letters M O B and A.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now! I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
The blockbuster movie hit of 2012 isn't a remake or a sequel.
Explain to me how it isnt a sequel? Its a sequel to multiple movies at once but it surely is a sequel.
I would just call it a movie in the same franchise as the others.
Because it really isn't a direct sequel to any of the other movies...it's more of a "spin-off." Calling it a sequel, would be like calling "The Justice League" a sequel to "Superman."
Captain America and Thor were made just to introduce the characters so they could make this movie. It even has the same villain as Thor and the same macguffin asCaptain America (which by the way had The First Avenger in the movie's title)
I'm not buying the game due to RMAH and some other things I'm against on principle but I have watched some streams and talked to friends who play it. I'll be honest, they seem to have made a really good co-op game on higher difficulties. The first playthrough does seem very good for people who enjoy a real challenge in co-op. I have doubts about the longetivity of the game, how fun will it be to replay it, that remains to be seen.
If it wasn't for RMAH, always online etc then I would definitely buy it since I enjoy challenging co-op gameplay with friends alot.
The blockbuster movie hit of 2012 isn't a remake or a sequel.
Explain to me how it isnt a sequel? Its a sequel to multiple movies at once but it surely is a sequel.
I would just call it a movie in the same franchise as the others.
Because it really isn't a direct sequel to any of the other movies...it's more of a "spin-off." Calling it a sequel, would be like calling "The Justice League" a sequel to "Superman."
Captain America and Thor were made just to introduce the characters so they could make this movie. It even has the same villain as Thor and the same macguffin asCaptain America (which by the way had The First Avenger in the movie's title)
That still doesn't mean anything...
I mean, the characters for "The Jeffersons" were introduced in "All in the Family," and yet...the Jeffersons is not a sequel.
If I were to score D3 I would give it a 3. I haven't played it or even seen a video of it being played. I think i saw a screenshot but that might be Torchlight 2. The reason I would give it a 3 is because there is no pvp. I don't find challenge in exploiting stupid AI's or whatnot. Players are the only real challenge. Also, I dislike all aRPG games since I consider them boring click fests.
I'm convinced a lot of people rate games they haven't played. That goes for the hype meter on this site as much as it does for IMDB for films or Metacritic for everything.
Remember when 4chan started trolling Dragon Age 2? A game that was dissapointing to a lot people, but a dissapointment can still get a good score. the original was highly regarded with many giving 10s and 9s. a DA2 could still be worthy of 6s and 7s and even 8s - but thats not really reflected when you got such zealousy.
I for one liked Dragon Age 2. It's a deeply flawed game, but it's much more interesting than it's generic bland predecessor. So even though DA2 was buggy, needed minimum one more year of development and all these other things, I still found it more interesting and ultimately more worthwhile than the first game, thanks to better written party members, a more likeable main character, and some interesting story choices with the Qunari, were the first game was boring-bland-LOTR-written-by-12-year-old.
I can't use metacritic for anything because it doesnt show the entire story. And the game will have a vastly different meaning for a newcomer compared to a fan. a score to reflect the quality of said game, will be different depending on the outlook the player has. Does he have expectations? did he play the first one? is he a fan?`does he like RPGs?
Maybe a certain type of player loved the game - perhaps a type of player who disliked the slower combat of DAO? Maybe there are more of those action type happy-go-luckly-consolers out there who never went on metacritic to begin with? You don't get a fair distribution of all types of balanced opinions. That's the problem. it gets watered down to a popularity contest.
If even 1% of the WoW population came to these forums, they could spike as WoW as the best rated game on MMORPG.com. Right now its not even in top 10 because all the fans are not mingling here. does this prove that the overall MMORPG fanbase in the west do not like WoW? NO! - All it proves is that a lot of WoW lovers have not migrated here. That's all it is.
It's shocking to see so many posters who can't understand this simple truth about rating systems. I guess it's because a lot of you are not comfortable liking things that are unpopular or liking things that are inperfect. Maybe you feel inadequette if you cheer for the losing team, or you are afraid that people will think less of you if someone will perceive you as having "bad taste".
I can have major objections against something and still like it. I can enjoy listening to bad music. My favorite games dont always have good graphics. Sometimes the best movies are black/white with crappy stunts. That's the problem. A score can't tell all the details. A score cant explain all the things IN SPITE.
I see people here counting up what D3 offers contra D2. You can't seperate fun like that. It's like with the Guild Wars 2 discussion. It is what it is. If it's over in 120 hours instead of a 1000 hours, so be it. All it is, is projecting past behavioral patterns onto new games. You're taking all the old stigmas and applying them to new things.
TL;DR - Blizzard is not entitled to anything. Haters gonna hate, and the rest is gonna enjoy it in silence. It's the easiest thing in the world to hang around people with the same opinions as yourself. That doesn't make you more right. You can use numbers to find the truth in whatever you want. But it's often only you're true. Numbers don't lie, but you lie to yourself about what they mean.
I think comparing Blizzard games to Comic book movies is an excellent comparison. Both really suck but a lot of people like them anyway for reasons unknown.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now! I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
The blockbuster movie hit of 2012 isn't a remake or a sequel.
Explain to me how it isnt a sequel? Its a sequel to multiple movies at once but it surely is a sequel.
I would just call it a movie in the same franchise as the others.
Because it really isn't a direct sequel to any of the other movies...it's more of a "spin-off." Calling it a sequel, would be like calling "The Justice League" a sequel to "Superman."
Captain America and Thor were made just to introduce the characters so they could make this movie. It even has the same villain as Thor and the same macguffin asCaptain America (which by the way had The First Avenger in the movie's title)
That still doesn't mean anything...
I mean, the characters for "The Jeffersons" were introduced in "All in the Family," and yet...the Jeffersons is not a sequel.
Also, why are we talking about this? lol
Because its more interesting than metacritic reviews by people giving a game a zero because they couldnt log in on day one (something that should realistically take no more than 1 or 2 points off a fair score)
Originally posted by Avarix Originally posted by dubyahiteOMG 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.
And as long as people BUY these online SPRPGs, companies will keep distributing them this way. I bought Skyrim, but you can take it offline easily. No way I am buying Diablo III. (I wasn't all that impressed with Diablo II, though had a blast playing the original.)
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I disagree. While I won't argue if it's a good or a bad game as that's entirely subjective, I can't think of a game that's ever actually been a "0", much less a "0" across the board. A "0" to me would be a piece of software that is permanantly unusable. People are raging right now and bringing it down, it will come back up.
Comments
You call what are actually facts, excuses, and then put logic in quotes. The irony is thick.
I'd say it's at least an 8/10. Depending on its lasting appeal it could be a 9. The 87 metacritic rating is pretty much around where it should be.
Maybe a 3.6 is a bit too low of a score, but surely Diablo 3 doesn't deserve more than 6.
It is a massive disappointment IMO
I owned Diablo 1 and played Diablo 2 for ages and loved them.
But Diablo 3 just doesn't cut it in 2012.............sorry Blizzard
I would not use Metacritic, They have alot of games under rated which should not be.
Most of the games they have on low review I have tried and there not as bad as they make it sound and or near what review score they gave it. ( Again just my opinion)
It has to be funner, donchaknow?
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
People's taste, experience and expectations have changed. if it didn't then we would simply be happy playing the same game over and over with slightly upgraded graphics year after year. i.e Jet Set Willy 2012.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
1) why make a new thread?
2) You hand pick and choose a few titles, and then claim they are spot on? They are spot on in YOUR world, but the world and overall opinions of EVERYONE ELSE and even THE MAJORITY OF GAMERS WHO DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN METACRITIC-LIKE RATING SYSTEMS OR WHO ARE INVESTED INTERNET GAMING COMMUNITY FEEDBACK.
3) The game has been out for less than two days. Don't be so quick to jump the gun and claim your the spokesman for "fans". That's a broad term, and it's borderline trolling to talk about it as factual.
4)I don't even own Diablo 3. Games seemed fun to me. It's so apparent to see that this is a popularity contest, and it just being cool and hip to hate on Bioware and Blizzard. You haven't played a game worthy of such a low score like 3/10.
5) Rating system is dumb. Like all statistics and studies they are easily manipulated to prove a point. I could go scout metacritic for certain games with certain ratings to build my own case. but what would be the point? Metacritic doesnt pull in all types of gamers. There is a great silent majority out there who dont use internet forums, who will love Diablo 3 without knowing much about it prior. Those people are fans too. Nobody here is going to express their views.
If the opinions on gaming forums reflected real life opinions Madden and Call of Duty wouldnt be best selling franchises and WoW would have been long dead.
Open your mind.
Wonder what the score is by people who werent die hard diablo 2 fans, and by people who arent just butthurt over the servers being down. Those two types of people are worthless for real, honest reviews.
It's also like if you look at the transition from D1 to D2...
We went from a game with...
1. Three classes that basically shared all the same abilities but were just "better" at certain things.
2. Exclusively dungeon environments in exception for the town.
3. Essentially one graphical and cultural theme throughout the entire game (gothic).
4. No "server-side" characters which resulted in people being able to hack the game with a simple client side trainer.
To a game with...
1. Five classes that all had unique abilities.
2. Varied environment including several outdoor environments.
3. Multiple graphical and cultural themes that you get to experience throughout the game, such as Egyptian and Mayan themes.
4. Online play over Battle.NET with server-side characters in addition to traditional single player with client side characters. This really cut down on cheating (if you don't believe this, you didn't play D1) and still allowed people to play single player.
There's just so much there that changed. D2 was in almost every way bigger, badder, and better than D1. But D3 is extremely similiar to D2 and even offers less in some cases.
The ironic thing is that I'm almost certain D3 will get a metascore in the 90's or upper eighties, while D2 had a metascore significantly less than D1 despite improving on almost every aspect of D1.
Our standards used to be higher lol...
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Explain to me how it isnt a sequel? Its a sequel to multiple movies at once but it surely is a sequel.
Were I to score it, I would give it an 8. I think that's fair.
It's a very fun game and I'm really enjoying it, but I don't think it's much of an improvement over its predecessor. And the whole "always online" thing really does detract from the single player experience. I mean, this is the first time I've ever rubber banded while playing a single player game lol.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
If I were to score D3 I would give it a 3. I haven't played it or even seen a video of it being played. I think i saw a screenshot but that might be Torchlight 2. The reason I would give it a 3 is because there is no pvp. I don't find challenge in exploiting stupid AI's or whatnot. Players are the only real challenge. Also, I dislike all aRPG games since I consider them boring click fests.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now!
I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
I would just call it a movie in the same franchise as the others.
Because it really isn't a direct sequel to any of the other movies...it's more of a "spin-off." Calling it a sequel, would be like calling "The Justice League" a sequel to "Superman."
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Don't yah think it's just a bit unfair to rate a game you haven't ever played
?
I mean...I've been pretty harsh on D3 for all the crap they are pulling, but I still admit it's a fairly decent game.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Diablo 3 gets a 3.6, Mass Effect 3 gets a 3.9, and Dragon Age 2 gets a 4.2? That sounds an awful lot like heaps of fanboys nerdraging over how their game wasn't what they thought it would be, or are we honestly saying those games are worse than:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/two-worlds
Any time a highly anticipated title is released, you're going to have people with incredibly unrealistic expecations, and those people will always be disappointed when they actually start playing said game. I couldn't imagine waiting 11 years for Diablo 3, and from that perspective, I don't blame people for having unrealistic expectations, but I don't see how any responsible reviewer could give this game any less than an 8 out of 10.
Certainly it is unfair, but that is why you need to be wary of metacritic. I'd also give League of Legends a 3 because I hate MOBA games. I don't even know what MOBA stands for and I can't seem to make an acronym for "Lots of idiotic mobs running into each other" out of the letters M O B and A.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now!
I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
Captain America and Thor were made just to introduce the characters so they could make this movie. It even has the same villain as Thor and the same macguffin asCaptain America (which by the way had The First Avenger in the movie's title)
I'm not buying the game due to RMAH and some other things I'm against on principle but I have watched some streams and talked to friends who play it. I'll be honest, they seem to have made a really good co-op game on higher difficulties. The first playthrough does seem very good for people who enjoy a real challenge in co-op. I have doubts about the longetivity of the game, how fun will it be to replay it, that remains to be seen.
If it wasn't for RMAH, always online etc then I would definitely buy it since I enjoy challenging co-op gameplay with friends alot.
That still doesn't mean anything...
I mean, the characters for "The Jeffersons" were introduced in "All in the Family," and yet...the Jeffersons is not a sequel.
Also, why are we talking about this? lol
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I'm convinced a lot of people rate games they haven't played. That goes for the hype meter on this site as much as it does for IMDB for films or Metacritic for everything.
Remember when 4chan started trolling Dragon Age 2? A game that was dissapointing to a lot people, but a dissapointment can still get a good score. the original was highly regarded with many giving 10s and 9s. a DA2 could still be worthy of 6s and 7s and even 8s - but thats not really reflected when you got such zealousy.
I for one liked Dragon Age 2. It's a deeply flawed game, but it's much more interesting than it's generic bland predecessor. So even though DA2 was buggy, needed minimum one more year of development and all these other things, I still found it more interesting and ultimately more worthwhile than the first game, thanks to better written party members, a more likeable main character, and some interesting story choices with the Qunari, were the first game was boring-bland-LOTR-written-by-12-year-old.
I can't use metacritic for anything because it doesnt show the entire story. And the game will have a vastly different meaning for a newcomer compared to a fan. a score to reflect the quality of said game, will be different depending on the outlook the player has. Does he have expectations? did he play the first one? is he a fan?`does he like RPGs?
Maybe a certain type of player loved the game - perhaps a type of player who disliked the slower combat of DAO? Maybe there are more of those action type happy-go-luckly-consolers out there who never went on metacritic to begin with? You don't get a fair distribution of all types of balanced opinions. That's the problem. it gets watered down to a popularity contest.
If even 1% of the WoW population came to these forums, they could spike as WoW as the best rated game on MMORPG.com. Right now its not even in top 10 because all the fans are not mingling here. does this prove that the overall MMORPG fanbase in the west do not like WoW? NO! - All it proves is that a lot of WoW lovers have not migrated here. That's all it is.
It's shocking to see so many posters who can't understand this simple truth about rating systems. I guess it's because a lot of you are not comfortable liking things that are unpopular or liking things that are inperfect. Maybe you feel inadequette if you cheer for the losing team, or you are afraid that people will think less of you if someone will perceive you as having "bad taste".
I can have major objections against something and still like it. I can enjoy listening to bad music. My favorite games dont always have good graphics. Sometimes the best movies are black/white with crappy stunts. That's the problem. A score can't tell all the details. A score cant explain all the things IN SPITE.
I see people here counting up what D3 offers contra D2. You can't seperate fun like that. It's like with the Guild Wars 2 discussion. It is what it is. If it's over in 120 hours instead of a 1000 hours, so be it. All it is, is projecting past behavioral patterns onto new games. You're taking all the old stigmas and applying them to new things.
TL;DR - Blizzard is not entitled to anything. Haters gonna hate, and the rest is gonna enjoy it in silence. It's the easiest thing in the world to hang around people with the same opinions as yourself. That doesn't make you more right. You can use numbers to find the truth in whatever you want. But it's often only you're true. Numbers don't lie, but you lie to yourself about what they mean.
TRUTH SIREN. OOOHHHHHH
I think comparing Blizzard games to Comic book movies is an excellent comparison. Both really suck but a lot of people like them anyway for reasons unknown.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now!
I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
Because its more interesting than metacritic reviews by people giving a game a zero because they couldnt log in on day one (something that should realistically take no more than 1 or 2 points off a fair score)
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.
And as long as people BUY these online SPRPGs, companies will keep distributing them this way. I bought Skyrim, but you can take it offline easily. No way I am buying Diablo III. (I wasn't all that impressed with Diablo II, though had a blast playing the original.)
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I disagree. While I won't argue if it's a good or a bad game as that's entirely subjective, I can't think of a game that's ever actually been a "0", much less a "0" across the board. A "0" to me would be a piece of software that is permanantly unusable. People are raging right now and bringing it down, it will come back up.