The question at this point is how long will they be loving it. If it's still getting this kind of reviews and sales two months from now, I'll be far more willing to minimize the complaints. Otherwise, it can join the pile of recent game releases that have turned out to be duds. It's still far too early to make a final judgment; I don't care how big the numbers are. Only time will tell whether the hype was correct or not.
I find the situation similar to what Wizards of the Coast went through with 4th edition. The sales numbers were ultimately fantistic for any game that didn't have the D&D name, but for WotC, the edition was far from the success they were expecting, and it generally is seen as not nearly as successful as it could have or should have been. I can see the potential for D3 to be the same. 6.3 million is a lot for any game that isn't made by Blizzard, but for a Blizzard game, it's still not likely to be seen as all that great if that's its peak.
I dont think it matters, Blizzard dont care they have made their money back and a healthly profit to boot.
Diablo has a cult following so it will not be a dud and I can assure you that there will be a expansion if not 2.
Note that majority of people dont post about about games on Internet, they speak with their wallets, so far 6.5 mill + have spoken, and whether that is low for a Blizzard game is neither here nor there, it is already is a success and will be around until DB4 even if that takes another 12 years.
WOTC made a profit off of 4E as well, with a similar cult following with the Dungeons and Dragons brand, and a great many people think it was a great system, but the overall consensus is still that it fell short of what it could and/or should have been because of the phenomal success of it's predecessor. Expect the same kind of reaction with D3 if it can't sustain itself at the level that Blizzard fans expect. It can reap in profits from day 1, and still be considered, if not a failure, at least a disappointment.
think what you want.... this game will sell plenty more. Not that many people took the game back becuase they could not play the first day. Some people (like I often do) wait until the game is out and they can try a demo before buying a game. That means people are probably holding out. Many people also do not rush to buy a game the first day becuase they do not have the time.
Nirrtix ALPHAs: -Pantheon -Shroud of the Avatar -Camelot Unchained BETAs: -World of Warcraft -City of Heroes -Star Wars Galaxies -Saga of Ryzom -Homeworld -Starcraft II -Warcraft III -Hearthstone -Star Wars The Old Republic -Vanguard Saga of Heroes
PC gamer gave it a 90 out of 100, pretty good score in my opinion. I don't really look at any other sites though. I'm not sure why people on an mmo site complain about the always online thing..
I'm sure GW2 will be coming out with an offline mode right?
I agree... On an MMO site you would think they would be used to the games going down and disconnecting (laughs). I know as an avid MMOer I got used to it over the years. I remember one day a week EQ1 was always down for several hours for "patch day." I think that they are upset becuase they want to only play the game single player. Frankly I bought this game to play online with friends. If i want a single player game I will buy Final Fantasy.
If it was a brand new IP designed for online play, I could see the reason to be puzzled, but in this case, it's a franchise that has tradtionally not been online only and a game that at its core that requires it to be online. I'm sorry, but there is nothing fundamental to the game itself added by the auction house, achievements, or any of the other social features Bilzzard is touting. Given that, the complaints make much more sense.
It was never an online only game before because in the past piracy wasn't as rife as it is now and when the game came out most people were on dial up connections and plenty still didnt even have the internet. Releasing an online only game in 1999 or so would be suicide, releasing one in 2012 is just normal.
I didn't buy it when it first released so I never had any of the unable to play problems other people had. But I was a big fan of D1 and D2 so I picked it up and have had lots of fun with it. I played the original Diablo without any hacks but after I finished the second Diablo, a buddy of mine showed me some of the cheats you could do with it so I guess being unable to do that doesn't bother me. It's a fun game for what it is and like others have said, it's a success based on its sales and requires no subscription. So if people decide to stop playing it in 6 months, who cares? It's not an mmo and it's success isn't exactly based on player retention. Is it the best hack and slash to come out this year? No idea, but I will try POE and Torchlight 2 at some point after their release and we will see then.
I'm sorry but the only one saying anything about the second coming is you. Fans of a game accept its flaws and strengths.
JAbas there is such thing as a fair review. A fair review is not someone jsut rating a game a 1 becuase they could not play the first day, that is someone venting. I bet you have more friends than you think playing. I know many.
Troll reviews dont count, 1/10 and 10/10 are troll reviews imo
I have more friends playing? mmm... i dont call "friend" to anyone u know?
We are a group of real life friends that enjoy MMORPGs, sometimes we are all in same game, some times not really. And one love diablo series and having fun in D3, the rest like me not really.
Anyway, the number of friends playing D3 wasnt the point of my replie.
Seriously most people on sites I see are rating Diablo 3 a 1 becuase they do not like needing to be online to play. I confess it is annoying to be disconnected and having to start over a zone, which is why I have it a 9 instead of a 10, but this game is not a 1. I have faith however that Blizzard with fix that problem one way or another, and it has been minimal for me as I am always online.
Others are mad becuase the game is much different than Diablo 2 in that there are no scrolls of town portal or the class advancement is totally different. The problem is if they played the game they would ralize that the new way might be better in their eyes. Instead of upgrading their stats, you get to choose which spells you use out of 5 and which upgrades you want to use on them.
The videos and music are amazing and the theme is true to the series. Others also complain that the graphics are subpar for the 10 years it took to make the game. The series have always had the same graphical theme.
In the end I think Diablo 3 is not perfect, but it is an excellent addition to the series and adds some new things to the series like the spells runes and Blacksmith and Jewelcrafter (which is mostly the same as the Horadric Cube, but he does a little more like taking out gems from sockets.)
Either 1 or 9 is a fair score for D3.
I agree with you on ppl rating the game 1. That's just kinda stupid. Though rating it 9-10 is also way to high. There's noway this game can be compared with other top games.. Not at all.
If you ask me, ill give the game 7 or 8 nothing more or less. The game just doesn't have what it takes to be rated as a top game, either does it belong i the low ratings among horrible games made trough years. This game is not bad at all!
Those numbers don't include the 1 million people that subscribed to a year of WoW either, people that probably for some at least are not even playing WoW right now but will continue to pay a sub when they otherwise would not have.
I think it's a success and I know people that want to play it that have yet to buy it.
You're missing the point. it doesn't matter how good the initial sales are if they can't be sustained at the level that the company and it's fans expect. A more recent case in point, SWTOR. Fantastic initial sales; now, seen largely as a flop despite the large numbers of people who still play it, and that hasn't even been out for six months. I see no reason to believe that Blizzard or D3 is immune to such a reaction. It's not a gaurantee by any means, but it is still a very reasonable possibility given the sheer amount of expectations surrounding the game and the company.
The question at this point is how long will they be loving it. If it's still getting this kind of reviews and sales two months from now, I'll be far more willing to minimize the complaints. Otherwise, it can join the pile of recent game releases that have turned out to be duds. It's still far too early to make a final judgment; I don't care how big the numbers are. Only time will tell whether the hype was correct or not.
I find the situation similar to what Wizards of the Coast went through with 4th edition. The sales numbers were ultimately fantistic for any game that didn't have the D&D name, but for WotC, the edition was far from the success they were expecting, and it generally is seen as not nearly as successful as it could have or should have been. I can see the potential for D3 to be the same. 6.3 million is a lot for any game that isn't made by Blizzard, but for a Blizzard game, it's still not likely to be seen as all that great if that's its peak.
I dont think it matters, Blizzard dont care they have made their money back and a healthly profit to boot.
Diablo has a cult following so it will not be a dud and I can assure you that there will be a expansion if not 2.
Note that majority of people dont post about about games on Internet, they speak with their wallets, so far 6.5 mill + have spoken, and whether that is low for a Blizzard game is neither here nor there, it is already is a success and will be around until DB4 even if that takes another 12 years.
WOTC made a profit off of 4E as well, with a similar cult following with the Dungeons and Dragons brand, and a great many people think it was a great system, but the overall consensus is still that it fell short of what it could and/or should have been because of the phenomal success of it's predecessor. Expect the same kind of reaction with D3 if it can't sustain itself at the level that Blizzard fans expect. It can reap in profits from day 1, and still be considered, if not a failure, at least a disappointment.
So what if it falls short? Many a game fall short, no biggie. Even though I honestly do not think that DB3 has fallen short. it has been out for 1 minute, it can and will only get better from here.
And yes it may never reach the heights of DB1 and/or DB2 but I doubt Blizzard expect that any way. Simply because it is to similar to DB1 and DB2 ie not revolutionary. However bear in mind that these days there are more people playing games, so in numbers there maybe more but perhaps not in percentages of overall gamers and perhaps not in longevity as people will tend to move on to newer games sooner.
hun, Blizzard should be about making a profit... they are a COMPANY any company that is not trying to make a profit I would not invest in.
Of course they should and they have. I think you may have misunderstood my post. There is always a risk in gaming that you dont make a profit or you scrape to make a profit, which is clearly not the case here.
JAbas there is such thing as a fair review. A fair review is not someone jsut rating a game a 1 becuase they could not play the first day, that is someone venting. I bet you have more friends than you think playing. I know many.
Troll reviews dont count, 1/10 and 10/10 are troll reviews imo
I have more friends playing? mmm... i dont call "friend" to anyone u know?
We are a group of real life friends that enjoy MMORPGs, sometimes we are all in same game, some times not really. And one love diablo series and having fun in D3, the rest like me not really.
Anyway, the number of friends playing D3 wasnt the point of my replie.
JAbas I was not refering to anyone I know. I was saying you probably have friends who have the game that you do not know about.
Nirrtix ALPHAs: -Pantheon -Shroud of the Avatar -Camelot Unchained BETAs: -World of Warcraft -City of Heroes -Star Wars Galaxies -Saga of Ryzom -Homeworld -Starcraft II -Warcraft III -Hearthstone -Star Wars The Old Republic -Vanguard Saga of Heroes
Originally posted by RathanX26 I didn't buy it when it first released so I never had any of the unable to play problems other people had. But I was a big fan of D1 and D2 so I picked it up and have had lots of fun with it. I played the original Diablo without any hacks but after I finished the second Diablo, a buddy of mine showed me some of the cheats you could do with it so I guess being unable to do that doesn't bother me. It's a fun game for what it is and like others have said, it's a success based on its sales and requires no subscription. So if people decide to stop playing it in 6 months, who cares? It's not an mmo and it's success isn't exactly based on player retention. Is it the best hack and slash to come out this year? No idea, but I will try POE and Torchlight 2 at some point after their release and we will see then.
You may not care if people stop playing it in six months, but Blizzard certainly will. Their plans for the RMAH are banking on it; even if there isn't a subscription, you can bet Blizzard, and it's investors, needs and expects the game to stay healthy for a long time to make the kind of money they made from WoW. In the end, it doesnt matter if you are satisfied that it's a success, it matters whether they consider it a success. I don't see it being seen as a failure, but it still has the potential to be seen as a disappointment, even a major disappointment.
The question at this point is how long will they be loving it. If it's still getting this kind of reviews and sales two months from now, I'll be far more willing to minimize the complaints. Otherwise, it can join the pile of recent game releases that have turned out to be duds. It's still far too early to make a final judgment; I don't care how big the numbers are. Only time will tell whether the hype was correct or not.
I find the situation similar to what Wizards of the Coast went through with 4th edition. The sales numbers were ultimately fantistic for any game that didn't have the D&D name, but for WotC, the edition was far from the success they were expecting, and it generally is seen as not nearly as successful as it could have or should have been. I can see the potential for D3 to be the same. 6.3 million is a lot for any game that isn't made by Blizzard, but for a Blizzard game, it's still not likely to be seen as all that great if that's its peak.
I dont think it matters, Blizzard dont care they have made their money back and a healthly profit to boot.
Diablo has a cult following so it will not be a dud and I can assure you that there will be a expansion if not 2.
Note that majority of people dont post about about games on Internet, they speak with their wallets, so far 6.5 mill + have spoken, and whether that is low for a Blizzard game is neither here nor there, it is already is a success and will be around until DB4 even if that takes another 12 years.
WOTC made a profit off of 4E as well, with a similar cult following with the Dungeons and Dragons brand, and a great many people think it was a great system, but the overall consensus is still that it fell short of what it could and/or should have been because of the phenomal success of it's predecessor. Expect the same kind of reaction with D3 if it can't sustain itself at the level that Blizzard fans expect. It can reap in profits from day 1, and still be considered, if not a failure, at least a disappointment.
So what if it falls short? Many a game fall short, no biggie. Even though I honestly do not think that DB3 has fallen short. it has been out for 1 minute, it can and will only get better from here.
And yes it may never reach the heights of DB1 and/or DB2 but I doubt Blizzard expect that any way. Simply because it is to similar to DB1 and DB2 ie not revolutionary. However bear in mind that these days there are more people playing games, so in numbers there maybe more but perhaps not in percentages of overall gamers and perhaps not in longevity as people will tend to move on to newer games sooner.
hun, Blizzard should be about making a profit... they are a COMPANY any company that is not trying to make a profit I would not invest in.
Of course they should and they have. I think you may have misunderstood my post. There is always a risk in gaming that you dont make a profit or you scrape to make a profit, which is clearly not the case here.
I am sorry if i misunderstood. Many people are critisizing Blizzard for trying to make a profit one way or another, even if it is through an Auction House. Here is the deal They are about making money, and I do not mind if it is an optional system in game. Now if Diablo was called a Free MMO, but required a fee for an auctionhouse weather you use it or not, then I would be pissed. In thise case it is a free monthly game with components that has a feature that takes a cut of your profit from a real life auction house. I do not get the big deal.
In the end unless it is shady, I have no problem with Blizzard trying to make money. Of course maybe those upset are against paying monthly fees for any game. Monthly fee MMO's are often that way becuase they have to maintain the games more than free ones.
Nirrtix ALPHAs: -Pantheon -Shroud of the Avatar -Camelot Unchained BETAs: -World of Warcraft -City of Heroes -Star Wars Galaxies -Saga of Ryzom -Homeworld -Starcraft II -Warcraft III -Hearthstone -Star Wars The Old Republic -Vanguard Saga of Heroes
Those numbers don't include the 1 million people that subscribed to a year of WoW either, people that probably for some at least are not even playing WoW right now but will continue to pay a sub when they otherwise would not have.
I think it's a success and I know people that want to play it that have yet to buy it.
You're missing the point. it doesn't matter how good the initial sales are if they can't be sustained at the level that the company and it's fans expect. A more recent case in point, SWTOR. Fantastic initial sales; now, seen largely as a flop despite the large numbers of people who still play it, and that hasn't even been out for six months. I see no reason to believe that Blizzard or D3 is immune to such a reaction. It's not a gaurantee by any means, but it is still a very reasonable possibility given the sheer amount of expectations surrounding the game and the company.
D3 is not an MMO, its a standalone buy a box for $60 game, so all that matters is initial sales.
Uncharted 3 sales are at an all time low now despite only coming out last November, is that flop in your book?
While generlaly rating 99% of games at 1 is rathe rimmature and ignorant, thing is it's one of few ways that gamers can show their lack of support for systems like always-online in games that always supported single-player gameplay. All the talk about preventing cheaters and creating solid economy with RMAH is just crap, considering the fact they could simply make option to make a single-player only character that never can join co-op/mp games.
However, on the other hand, D3 is nowhere near a 10 or 9 even without the whole DRM issue. Yes, it's a solid game with lots of polish, decent visuals, top quality soundtrack and CGIs, but if those are the only requirements for games to get high marks then 90% of AAA releases would qualify (and maybe that's why scores are bloated in every game magazine for last years...). Thing is, all those features are pretty much tied to budget and developement time. Blizzard had 12 years and pretty much unlimited resources considering the profits they pull from WoW.
Question is, how does the game itself is? Is it actually trying to push the genre into newer direction? Does it provide sufficient challenge/fun factor? Does it have depth and complexity? Is it interesting beyond "click dudes so dudes die"? Frankly, for me personally, it was average on that front. It's polished and all... but same time it just felt rather shallow. I could give it a 7 or 8 -1 point for DRM, and about the same score to Torchlight 2..just without the minus.
I agree that D3 does not get fair reviews but i think the problem is not that some unhappy ppl rate it way too low the real prob is that professional sites rate it way too high.
I will not go into all the points as to why i think a 90 rating is way too(i say 90 since i found most reviews came in this region) much but i will say that any game that claims to be AAA that was in development for many years and that makes you pay 60$ should at least have weapon animations i mean wtf seriously we get 1 animation for all our weapons no matter if my monk uses a staff 2 swords 2 daggers or hand to hand weapons he will always use the same ability animations (hand to hand).
If any other game (Company) would have released a AA game for 60$ with this much lack of animations it would have been getting hate sooo much hate and no chance of a rating around the 90s but since its Blizzard no one even talks about it and its all hush hush.
D3 is a solid game but has many flaws if you compare it to current games a 80s rating might have been ok (85 if animations would be there) but the overall high reviews show that that the OP was right and D3 does not get reviewed fair by professional sites.
I agree that D3 does not get fair reviews but i think the problem is not that some unhappy ppl rate it way too low the real prob is that professional sites rate it way too high.
I will not go into all the points as to why i think a 90 rating is way too(i say 90 since i found most reviews came in this region) much but i will say that any game that claims to be AAA that was in development for many years and that makes you pay 60$ should at least have weapon animations i mean wtf seriously we get 1 animation for all our weapons no matter if my monk uses a staff 2 swords 2 daggers or hand to hand weapons he will always use the same ability animations (hand to hand).
If any other game (Company) would have released a AA game for 60$ with this much lack of animations it would have been getting hate sooo much hate and no chance of a rating around the 90s but since its Blizzard no one even talks about it and its all hush hush.
D3 is a solid game but has many flaws if you compare it to current games a 80s rating might have been ok (85 if animations would be there) but the overall high reviews show that that the OP was right and D3 does not get reviewed fair by professional sites.
Doomed that is a fair way to put it. I think the average should be closer to an 80. My problem is some people are rating the game without giving it a chance. Many on sites are rating without even playing it becuase they took it back the first night becuase they could not play it. MAny games havea rocky start. This is no different.
as for the anitmations you mean graphics I assume. The graphics are fine. That is blizzards style that is also the style of the series. As for the flaws, the flaws I see are falws in comaprison to D2. I can overlook most of them, but the thing I do not get is why some things were flat taken out. For instnace how they took out scrolls of town portal and identification, yet you still have to identify items by simply right clicking them! Why have unidentified items at all?!? Regardless it is not a game breaker, but odd.
Nirrtix ALPHAs: -Pantheon -Shroud of the Avatar -Camelot Unchained BETAs: -World of Warcraft -City of Heroes -Star Wars Galaxies -Saga of Ryzom -Homeworld -Starcraft II -Warcraft III -Hearthstone -Star Wars The Old Republic -Vanguard Saga of Heroes
D3 is not an MMO, its a standalone buy a box for $60 game, so all that matters is initial sales.
Uncharted 3 sales are at an all time low now despite only coming out last November, is that flop in your book?
If it was meant to be a standalone buy, than why include a RMAH? Anyone who thinks Blizzard sees D3 as a single purchase is kidding themselves.
I don't know about Uncharted 3, I just know that people who are absolutely in love with and defending D3 to the hilt right now are just as likely to change their opinions as those who dislike it, and generally good opinions turned bad are much, much more damaging than any other kind of PR.
Why do people keep assuming Blizzard used all those years on THIS Diablo 3?
They scrapped several "Diablo 3" games before finally deciding the direction to take the game into.
But whatever, right? Lets abuse that and make the game seem bad.
some sites are claiming this. I agree they probably scrapped several game models and graphics engines before making this one. 10 years ago this game would not run on a machine from then.
Nirrtix ALPHAs: -Pantheon -Shroud of the Avatar -Camelot Unchained BETAs: -World of Warcraft -City of Heroes -Star Wars Galaxies -Saga of Ryzom -Homeworld -Starcraft II -Warcraft III -Hearthstone -Star Wars The Old Republic -Vanguard Saga of Heroes
D3 is not an MMO, its a standalone buy a box for $60 game, so all that matters is initial sales.
Uncharted 3 sales are at an all time low now despite only coming out last November, is that flop in your book?
If it was meant to be a standalone buy, than why include a RMAH? Anyone who thinks Blizzard sees D3 as a single purchase is kidding themselves.
I don't know about Uncharted 3, I just know that people who are absolutely in love with and defending D3 to the hilt right now are just as likely to change their opinions as those who dislike it, and generally good opinions turned bad are much, much more damaging than any other kind of PR.
Please explain to me how D3 is going to goto pay to play model? Hun, they would not. If they did noone would play a Blizzard game again. I know I would not. I do not mind paying to play a game if that was always the intent. If they sold me a game telling me that it was free to play after buying then inacted a monthly fee, it would kill that companies reputation in my and jsut about everyone's eyes. I think you are worrying about something that will not happen.
Nirrtix ALPHAs: -Pantheon -Shroud of the Avatar -Camelot Unchained BETAs: -World of Warcraft -City of Heroes -Star Wars Galaxies -Saga of Ryzom -Homeworld -Starcraft II -Warcraft III -Hearthstone -Star Wars The Old Republic -Vanguard Saga of Heroes
I confess it is annoying to be disconnected and having to start over a zone, which is why I have it a 9 instead of a 10,
So... if that problem were gone you'd give it a 10? That is a fair review? A 10?
The hypocrisy of fanbois and haters around here simply astound me.
/laff
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
I am playing the game and having much fun playing it but to be honest the game is only a 7.5-8.0. For a game to be 9+ it has to be almost perfect at every level and very few games are actually that good. Of course we now live in a era where 9.0 is standard and games actually get a score of 10 but needs somethings improved. I guess we forgot what a perfect score means.
The user reviews are (as always) completely emotion driven and obviously irrational BS. The game is obviously not anything below a 7.
I found some of the critic reviews fair though. I think the game is an 8.5. It is great fun, and I would have given it a 9, but I dinged it .5 points because of the always online issues, no mods, and RMAH.
I've already been annoyed with the always online, and I can imagine I will also be annoyed by the other two aforementioned issues.
Doomed that is a fair way to put it. I think the average should be closer to an 80. My problem is some people are rating the game without giving it a chance. Many on sites are rating without even playing it becuase they took it back the first night becuase they could not play it. MAny games havea rocky start. This is no different.
I do understand where you are coming from but i do not think its a real problem games make commercial with high professional reviews they do not put reviews from nobodies on there commercial or boxes they use the reviews from the professional sites.
So while i do agree with you that personal ratings of 1 are just stupid and not fair do i believe the real problem is the marketing value of the unfair (too high) professional reviews potential customers get blended by that and lured in to buy the game.
I also do think that ppl are to forgiving to the miserable start of D3 such starts might have been normal in MMORPS in the past but never for single player games with Multilayer actions at least not till now so the lesson we learned has to be to be careful when a new MMORPG launches and even more so if a Blizzard game launches.
D3 is not an MMO, its a standalone buy a box for $60 game, so all that matters is initial sales.
Uncharted 3 sales are at an all time low now despite only coming out last November, is that flop in your book?
If it was meant to be a standalone buy, than why include a RMAH? Anyone who thinks Blizzard sees D3 as a single purchase is kidding themselves.
I don't know about Uncharted 3, I just know that people who are absolutely in love with and defending D3 to the hilt right now are just as likely to change their opinions as those who dislike it, and generally good opinions turned bad are much, much more damaging than any other kind of PR.
The RMAH is there because of the player made economy in Diablo 2, people were trading items and buying them for real cash, if you were blizzard would you levea this out of the sequel? It's like a licence to print money, give the users a safe way to trade items for real money and take a cut. No matter how bad or good it does it will make them money.
Even if only 5% of the people that bought the game in the first week use the RMAH thats blizzard getting a cut of trades between around 300,000 players. I assume you would class 300,000 players that continue to play as the game failing? Blizzard would see it as a win.
Please explain to me how D3 is going to goto pay to play model? Hun, they would not. If they did noone would play a Blizzard game again. I know I would not. I do not mind paying to play a game if that was always the intent. If they sold me a game telling me that it was free to play after buying then inacted a monthly fee, it would kill that companies reputation in my and jsut about everyone's eyes. I think you are worrying about something that will not happen.
I never said they were going to a pay to play model. They aren't stupid enough to try anything that blatant; the whole concept of the RMAH is to avoid having to take that final step, but still make money from people over time. Whether it will work or not is an entirely different question, but it is clear that Blizzard is banking on getting more than just the initial sale of the box from it's users.
Comments
think what you want.... this game will sell plenty more. Not that many people took the game back becuase they could not play the first day. Some people (like I often do) wait until the game is out and they can try a demo before buying a game. That means people are probably holding out. Many people also do not rush to buy a game the first day becuase they do not have the time.
Nirrtix
ALPHAs:
-Pantheon
-Shroud of the Avatar
-Camelot Unchained
BETAs:
-World of Warcraft
-City of Heroes
-Star Wars Galaxies
-Saga of Ryzom
-Homeworld
-Starcraft II
-Warcraft III
-Hearthstone
-Star Wars The Old Republic
-Vanguard Saga of Heroes
It was never an online only game before because in the past piracy wasn't as rife as it is now and when the game came out most people were on dial up connections and plenty still didnt even have the internet. Releasing an online only game in 1999 or so would be suicide, releasing one in 2012 is just normal.
I'm sorry but the only one saying anything about the second coming is you. Fans of a game accept its flaws and strengths.
Troll reviews dont count, 1/10 and 10/10 are troll reviews imo
I have more friends playing? mmm... i dont call "friend" to anyone u know?
We are a group of real life friends that enjoy MMORPGs, sometimes we are all in same game, some times not really. And one love diablo series and having fun in D3, the rest like me not really.
Anyway, the number of friends playing D3 wasnt the point of my replie.
Either 1 or 9 is a fair score for D3.
I agree with you on ppl rating the game 1. That's just kinda stupid. Though rating it 9-10 is also way to high. There's noway this game can be compared with other top games.. Not at all.
If you ask me, ill give the game 7 or 8 nothing more or less. The game just doesn't have what it takes to be rated as a top game, either does it belong i the low ratings among horrible games made trough years. This game is not bad at all!
ppl rating it 1 = Crybabies
ppl rating it 9/10 = fanboys.
You're missing the point. it doesn't matter how good the initial sales are if they can't be sustained at the level that the company and it's fans expect. A more recent case in point, SWTOR. Fantastic initial sales; now, seen largely as a flop despite the large numbers of people who still play it, and that hasn't even been out for six months. I see no reason to believe that Blizzard or D3 is immune to such a reaction. It's not a gaurantee by any means, but it is still a very reasonable possibility given the sheer amount of expectations surrounding the game and the company.
So what if it falls short? Many a game fall short, no biggie. Even though I honestly do not think that DB3 has fallen short. it has been out for 1 minute, it can and will only get better from here.
And yes it may never reach the heights of DB1 and/or DB2 but I doubt Blizzard expect that any way. Simply because it is to similar to DB1 and DB2 ie not revolutionary. However bear in mind that these days there are more people playing games, so in numbers there maybe more but perhaps not in percentages of overall gamers and perhaps not in longevity as people will tend to move on to newer games sooner.
hun, Blizzard should be about making a profit... they are a COMPANY any company that is not trying to make a profit I would not invest in.
Of course they should and they have. I think you may have misunderstood my post. There is always a risk in gaming that you dont make a profit or you scrape to make a profit, which is clearly not the case here.
JAbas I was not refering to anyone I know. I was saying you probably have friends who have the game that you do not know about.
Nirrtix
ALPHAs:
-Pantheon
-Shroud of the Avatar
-Camelot Unchained
BETAs:
-World of Warcraft
-City of Heroes
-Star Wars Galaxies
-Saga of Ryzom
-Homeworld
-Starcraft II
-Warcraft III
-Hearthstone
-Star Wars The Old Republic
-Vanguard Saga of Heroes
You may not care if people stop playing it in six months, but Blizzard certainly will. Their plans for the RMAH are banking on it; even if there isn't a subscription, you can bet Blizzard, and it's investors, needs and expects the game to stay healthy for a long time to make the kind of money they made from WoW. In the end, it doesnt matter if you are satisfied that it's a success, it matters whether they consider it a success. I don't see it being seen as a failure, but it still has the potential to be seen as a disappointment, even a major disappointment.
I think it is fair, that many show publicly their disappointment of this game. This is what reviews are made for.
However, in the end all those ratings don't matter at all. There are enough people out there who bought D3 and love it.
Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.
I am sorry if i misunderstood. Many people are critisizing Blizzard for trying to make a profit one way or another, even if it is through an Auction House. Here is the deal They are about making money, and I do not mind if it is an optional system in game. Now if Diablo was called a Free MMO, but required a fee for an auctionhouse weather you use it or not, then I would be pissed. In thise case it is a free monthly game with components that has a feature that takes a cut of your profit from a real life auction house. I do not get the big deal.
In the end unless it is shady, I have no problem with Blizzard trying to make money. Of course maybe those upset are against paying monthly fees for any game. Monthly fee MMO's are often that way becuase they have to maintain the games more than free ones.
Nirrtix
ALPHAs:
-Pantheon
-Shroud of the Avatar
-Camelot Unchained
BETAs:
-World of Warcraft
-City of Heroes
-Star Wars Galaxies
-Saga of Ryzom
-Homeworld
-Starcraft II
-Warcraft III
-Hearthstone
-Star Wars The Old Republic
-Vanguard Saga of Heroes
D3 is not an MMO, its a standalone buy a box for $60 game, so all that matters is initial sales.
Uncharted 3 sales are at an all time low now despite only coming out last November, is that flop in your book?
While generlaly rating 99% of games at 1 is rathe rimmature and ignorant, thing is it's one of few ways that gamers can show their lack of support for systems like always-online in games that always supported single-player gameplay. All the talk about preventing cheaters and creating solid economy with RMAH is just crap, considering the fact they could simply make option to make a single-player only character that never can join co-op/mp games.
However, on the other hand, D3 is nowhere near a 10 or 9 even without the whole DRM issue. Yes, it's a solid game with lots of polish, decent visuals, top quality soundtrack and CGIs, but if those are the only requirements for games to get high marks then 90% of AAA releases would qualify (and maybe that's why scores are bloated in every game magazine for last years...). Thing is, all those features are pretty much tied to budget and developement time. Blizzard had 12 years and pretty much unlimited resources considering the profits they pull from WoW.
Question is, how does the game itself is? Is it actually trying to push the genre into newer direction? Does it provide sufficient challenge/fun factor? Does it have depth and complexity? Is it interesting beyond "click dudes so dudes die"? Frankly, for me personally, it was average on that front. It's polished and all... but same time it just felt rather shallow. I could give it a 7 or 8 -1 point for DRM, and about the same score to Torchlight 2..just without the minus.
It simply didn't woo me.
I agree that D3 does not get fair reviews but i think the problem is not that some unhappy ppl rate it way too low the real prob is that professional sites rate it way too high.
I will not go into all the points as to why i think a 90 rating is way too(i say 90 since i found most reviews came in this region) much but i will say that any game that claims to be AAA that was in development for many years and that makes you pay 60$ should at least have weapon animations i mean wtf seriously we get 1 animation for all our weapons no matter if my monk uses a staff 2 swords 2 daggers or hand to hand weapons he will always use the same ability animations (hand to hand).
If any other game (Company) would have released a AA game for 60$ with this much lack of animations it would have been getting hate sooo much hate and no chance of a rating around the 90s but since its Blizzard no one even talks about it and its all hush hush.
D3 is a solid game but has many flaws if you compare it to current games a 80s rating might have been ok (85 if animations would be there) but the overall high reviews show that that the OP was right and D3 does not get reviewed fair by professional sites.
Doomed that is a fair way to put it. I think the average should be closer to an 80. My problem is some people are rating the game without giving it a chance. Many on sites are rating without even playing it becuase they took it back the first night becuase they could not play it. MAny games havea rocky start. This is no different.
as for the anitmations you mean graphics I assume. The graphics are fine. That is blizzards style that is also the style of the series. As for the flaws, the flaws I see are falws in comaprison to D2. I can overlook most of them, but the thing I do not get is why some things were flat taken out. For instnace how they took out scrolls of town portal and identification, yet you still have to identify items by simply right clicking them! Why have unidentified items at all?!? Regardless it is not a game breaker, but odd.
Nirrtix
ALPHAs:
-Pantheon
-Shroud of the Avatar
-Camelot Unchained
BETAs:
-World of Warcraft
-City of Heroes
-Star Wars Galaxies
-Saga of Ryzom
-Homeworld
-Starcraft II
-Warcraft III
-Hearthstone
-Star Wars The Old Republic
-Vanguard Saga of Heroes
Why do people keep assuming Blizzard used all those years on THIS Diablo 3?
They scrapped several "Diablo 3" games before finally deciding the direction to take the game into.
But whatever, right? Lets abuse that and make the game seem bad.
If it was meant to be a standalone buy, than why include a RMAH? Anyone who thinks Blizzard sees D3 as a single purchase is kidding themselves.
I don't know about Uncharted 3, I just know that people who are absolutely in love with and defending D3 to the hilt right now are just as likely to change their opinions as those who dislike it, and generally good opinions turned bad are much, much more damaging than any other kind of PR.
some sites are claiming this. I agree they probably scrapped several game models and graphics engines before making this one. 10 years ago this game would not run on a machine from then.
Nirrtix
ALPHAs:
-Pantheon
-Shroud of the Avatar
-Camelot Unchained
BETAs:
-World of Warcraft
-City of Heroes
-Star Wars Galaxies
-Saga of Ryzom
-Homeworld
-Starcraft II
-Warcraft III
-Hearthstone
-Star Wars The Old Republic
-Vanguard Saga of Heroes
Please explain to me how D3 is going to goto pay to play model? Hun, they would not. If they did noone would play a Blizzard game again. I know I would not. I do not mind paying to play a game if that was always the intent. If they sold me a game telling me that it was free to play after buying then inacted a monthly fee, it would kill that companies reputation in my and jsut about everyone's eyes. I think you are worrying about something that will not happen.
Nirrtix
ALPHAs:
-Pantheon
-Shroud of the Avatar
-Camelot Unchained
BETAs:
-World of Warcraft
-City of Heroes
-Star Wars Galaxies
-Saga of Ryzom
-Homeworld
-Starcraft II
-Warcraft III
-Hearthstone
-Star Wars The Old Republic
-Vanguard Saga of Heroes
So... if that problem were gone you'd give it a 10? That is a fair review? A 10?
The hypocrisy of fanbois and haters around here simply astound me.
/laff
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
I am playing the game and having much fun playing it but to be honest the game is only a 7.5-8.0. For a game to be 9+ it has to be almost perfect at every level and very few games are actually that good. Of course we now live in a era where 9.0 is standard and games actually get a score of 10 but needs somethings improved. I guess we forgot what a perfect score means.
The user reviews are (as always) completely emotion driven and obviously irrational BS. The game is obviously not anything below a 7.
I found some of the critic reviews fair though. I think the game is an 8.5. It is great fun, and I would have given it a 9, but I dinged it .5 points because of the always online issues, no mods, and RMAH.
I've already been annoyed with the always online, and I can imagine I will also be annoyed by the other two aforementioned issues.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I do understand where you are coming from but i do not think its a real problem games make commercial with high professional reviews they do not put reviews from nobodies on there commercial or boxes they use the reviews from the professional sites.
So while i do agree with you that personal ratings of 1 are just stupid and not fair do i believe the real problem is the marketing value of the unfair (too high) professional reviews potential customers get blended by that and lured in to buy the game.
I also do think that ppl are to forgiving to the miserable start of D3 such starts might have been normal in MMORPS in the past but never for single player games with Multilayer actions at least not till now so the lesson we learned has to be to be careful when a new MMORPG launches and even more so if a Blizzard game launches.
The RMAH is there because of the player made economy in Diablo 2, people were trading items and buying them for real cash, if you were blizzard would you levea this out of the sequel? It's like a licence to print money, give the users a safe way to trade items for real money and take a cut. No matter how bad or good it does it will make them money.
Even if only 5% of the people that bought the game in the first week use the RMAH thats blizzard getting a cut of trades between around 300,000 players. I assume you would class 300,000 players that continue to play as the game failing? Blizzard would see it as a win.
I never said they were going to a pay to play model. They aren't stupid enough to try anything that blatant; the whole concept of the RMAH is to avoid having to take that final step, but still make money from people over time. Whether it will work or not is an entirely different question, but it is clear that Blizzard is banking on getting more than just the initial sale of the box from it's users.