Zero Punctuation: Diablo 3

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Crono1973:
Randomly generated terrain just means that my explored maps never save when I leave the game. I no longer see any point to completely exploring a map since it won't stay explored when I leave the game.

That's one of the things that bothered me about Diablo in general. The environment RARELY MATTERS. There's a few levels in Diablo 2 where you can ply the environment to your advantage, but most of the time you're just wandering through a semi-open dark corridor.

For games like Nethack or Terraria, where I'm expecting to backtrack to some other new location, this can work just fine. You establish some sort of landmarks, order within chaos.

But for Diablo, unless it's a preset map, once you've murdered all the forces of hell, you're never going to set eyes on that room ever again.

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

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

That's one of the things that bothered me about Diablo in general. The environment RARELY MATTERS. There's a few levels in Diablo 2 where you can ply the environment to your advantage, but most of the time you're just wandering through a semi-open dark corridor.

And in later difficulties, most enemies just teleport to you, so you can't even use terrain cleverly.

Even Terraria feels more strategic :(

If you don't like the genre, you won't like games in that genre. It seems like a fairly simple equation to me, but I guess people just don't understand.

A lesson in Action-RPG tropes:

-Randomized content
-Character progression (hence the RPG bit)
-Mass genocide (hence the action bit)

People bitching about randomized content make no sense. That's...what the game is. That's what the genre is.

Do I think Diablo III is an exceptional game? No. I think it's fairly mediocre and is not worth 60 bucks. Their DRM scheme successfully drove the price up and the auction house will monetize the game further.

I don't think Yahtzee even wanted to review this game. He knew he was going to hate it from the get go because he's not into this genre. That's completely understandable. However, he could have made better points, like the complete absence of skill trees and the shoddy writing. Instead, he chose to target one of the basic proponents of the entire genre, which is just silly.

Titan Quest: Immortal Throne is a better game that came out in 2006. It had a much better story (great writing overall), is technically on the same plane, and was addictive. However, the vast majority of it was handcrafted (IE not randomized). I'd like to see if Yahtzee would enjoy that game, since it's in the same genre but would seem to suit his tastes much better.

I'm not talking down to Yahtzee or anything, I just feel that he could have really delved into Diablo III and the genre as a whole and related the two together for a better review. As it stands, his argument is basically, "well, uh, it's randomized and the story isn't too memorable."

Anyway, it was funny.

yundex:
Mass effect 3, spoiled the final mission mission.

I'm not sure it's even fair to count that one, since the only way to avoid spoilers for that game's ending was to pull the plug on your internet connection for the first two or three weeks after release. I had no interest in playing the game or even looking up the ending, and I ended up being spoiled on it through simply surfing the internet as I usually do.

He's also not the only person to at least partially mention the ending of ME3 in their review by a long shot.

Also:

ZP's Mass Effect 3 Review:
The final mission in war-torn London basically plays like Call of Duty: Laser Whoosh-Kapow Edition, and as a device to pad out the story-telling, it just turns into a chore.

That's a hell of a lot less of a spoiler than most reviews of the game that I've seen, to be perfectly honest. I'm not even sure that qualifies as a legitimate spoiler at all besides the setting, which (whoop big surprise) you're fighting on Earth in a game whose primary advertisement was "Take Back Earth". >_>

And SCREED brotherhood, which I finished before watching.

Er, I went back to watch this one just to see what you were on about, and I think you may want to check your facts there.

ZP's Assassin's Creed Brotherhood Review:
Meanwhile, Future Desmond and his future Scooby gang of attractive college students are traveling around future Italy, searching Ezio's memories for the location of the recurring MacGuffin they think will solve all their problems, and I won't spoil the ending, but let's just say it certainly does that!

While it's fair to say that he's hinting pretty heavily at what'll happen, that's still NOT a full ending spoiler.

I didn't actually mean that ENTIRE endings were spoiled, bad choice of words. But they're spoileriffic enough for me and many others.

Ah, so that explains why your previous two examples did not, in fact, spoil the entire ending of the games as you suggested they did. Huh. Guess you really didn't have much of an argument here, then.

You've only given examples of games in which he discusses his personal nitpicks about the ending, while managing to avoid actually stating specifically what happens in that ending. Your definition of "spoileriffic" is much, much too broad of a brush stroke.

My only point is that you do not watch Zero Punctuation to determine weather or not you want to buy a game, I do not care about the rest of your post or diablo 3, which is why I did not and will not address it.

Then why didn't you just quote the portion you took issue with? You quoted the whole thing, which would normally lead one to conclude that you disagreed with all of it but were choosing to focus on a single mostly-non-issue that wasn't even really established in the post you were quoting, like most posters around here do in very stereotypical straw man fashion.

But it's good to know that you agree with me that it makes no sense to bitch about the logic behind "playing the game is the only way to know if you'll like it", and that you don't disagree with the notion that watching/reading reviews (so long as said reviews aren't from Yahtzee anyways) is a valid option for deciding what games to purchase.

0over0:

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

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

No, obviously not. However as the dungeons are randomly generated each player's experience is going to be different and that would be worth comparing notes about.

I did not buy the game. Cause I knew it would suck. Well would you look at that. It does suck. So much they have to force you to play multiplayer. Wish blizzard would just stop making shit games.

I already made up my mind about the game before Yahtzee reviewed it, in that I decided not to get it based off not enjoying the first two. I did find his video enjoyable, though I know his standards concerning games are a lot harsher than mine, so I tend to watch them while keeping that in mind. Especially since I know that I enjoy it when he complains, so whether the game is actually good to me or not is irrelevant in the face of him talking about its lousier aspects.

The friends of mine who have played the game seem to enjoy it, and I'm glad their money was well-spent. As it is, I wasn't that fond of the first or second, and so I saw no reason to buy the third. I'm also sure that it will improve for those who think it's good but needs fixing, as Blizzard will throw patch after patch at it, ensuring a steady supply of Bawwing from Blizz fans.

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

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

Painful for you to watch too?

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

Jas0913:
It's a shame Yahtzee didn't play it through until the end. The final boss fight was so anticlimactic and the ending comes close to mass effect 3 bad. I was really looking forward to him bashing on that part.

I guess you never got past normal, what a shame.

The Forlorn:
I hope he didn't actually pay blizzard money to review the boring, shit game the with forced online. That would be contributing to more boring, shit, forced online games.

Have you ever actually played the game, or are you talking out your arse from what you've heard other people that haven't played the game say?

Fiz_The_Toaster:

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

Painful for you to watch too?

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

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

Rheinmetall:

Fiz_The_Toaster:

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

Painful for you to watch too?

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

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

I was drinking coffee when I saw the thing, and I didn't jump as much since he does use that a lot. But it kept coming up and I was using my coffee mug as a shield from the hairy critter while occasionally glancing to see if it's gone.

All the while not spilling hot coffee on myself and my laptop.

Only one inaccurary: In multiplayer, your coop-partner can NOT ninja loot your stuff.
Every enemy drops loot that only either of the players can see. When they have picked it up and thrown out of their inventory - only then - can the other player see the item.
So that bit about "some yahoo" "nixing all the rare pants"?
Not accurate.
Fair criticism though: Without any friends you wouldn't know about this, would you?
Also - isn't the online DRM nifty?
I always love it when I pay 60 bucks for a game that's only an online download and then can't connect to the server because - d'uh - they are overloaded on launch-day.
If you release your game as an online download you should be able to look at a counter and go "Holy shit! That is a lot of downloads! Better add some hardware to my servers!"
and not
"Ship millions of hardcopies. Sell millions of downloads. Hope like fuck no-one buys the hardcopies so as to not screw with our server capacity, which we have calculated solely on download-numbers (or vice versa)."

BTW - I'm only able to watch Escapist AT ALL because Blizzard, in its epic wisdom, has decided to kick me out of my running game via some out-of-nowhere error message and then ....... (NRRRGH) not letting me in again!
I can't use the game THAT I PAYED FOR on my own fucking terms, FFS.
I want to start the game? Hope Battlenet is not over capacity.
Want to continuously play? Hope Blizzard doesn't have other plans.
Like patching. Or maintenance. Or having sex on a server keyboard somewhere.
And you can say what you want about Chinese gold farmers - but at least transactions with them aren't as buggy as that auction house. Had to wait for their server maintenance to kick in before the item I bought showed up in my "completed" tab.
By that time, of course, I was so frustrated from not being able to play and not getting my item that I just threw it in my inventory, bashed one epic rare feind and found a better one - making this a hattrick of fail for Blizzard.

kingpocky:

mrdude2010:

Hitchmeister:

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

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

durrr copies sold=good game

Not saying D3 wasn't good, just saying that sales =/= goodness. Look at Transformers 2.

And you're seriously questioning why a corporation would choose making huge profits over game quality?

No, of course not, there's no reason for them to try if people are stupid enough to spend money on it anyway, I was just pointing out that just because something sells well doesn't mean its good.

Badum pssss

Yahtzee if you had played co-op maybe someone wouldve told you that you can assign whatever skill you want to whichever button you want :D
The streamlined version only lasts until you unlock the 6th skill and after that its strategy time :D

Try inferno.... The game can be pretty hard

Skyweir:

Indeed. And all of these things are negatives.

You should not have to go into the menus and hunt for an option to allow you to change skills for each button. It should be an inherint feature. So this is negative (the game never tells you to do this).

Says you. But I don't care about your opinion or his. I care about accurately representing a product as opposed to deliberately or inadvertently misrepresenting that product. As a journalist Yahtzee should know better. He can criticize things perfectly well so long as they don't obfuscate their actual implementation.

Skyweir:

You have to be on battle.net to play, which cause lag and server issues for a game that is a single player only game for many people, and the game is not marketed as an MMO.

I didn't broach this subject. I said you didn't have to play it with other players.

Skyweir:

Equipping weapons does increase your attack, yes. But this is a pretty stupid mechanic. Why would my zombie-dogs become more powerful when I have very sharp knife? Non-melee attacks being affected by your knife is absurd, and makes the game pretty odd. This is what Yatzee is refering to here. I think he understands how it works, he just doesn't like it. And neither do I, as a matter of fact.

Still don't care about opinions.

Skyweir:

And for the final point, normal being so easy makes the game boring. If I have to use 5-8 hours to play through the game on normal before I can get to the "real" game, why whould I want to play through the exact same game again?

Well that's unfortunate for you but there are plenty of others that are doing just fine.

CriticKitten:
And if you'd bothered to read the credits, you'd know that he already beat you to acknowledging this fact. Whoops.

Mostly likely due to development deadlines that come with this sort of job, he didn't have time to re-do the voice over for the entire video just to satisfy you and the rest of Blizzard's fans, who seem to already be out in droves over this video. You'd think he insulted your mothers or something.

He's publishing a video that is misrepresenting the facts about a product, and if he knows he's doing it, then he's doing it deliberately. That is unethical.

Did I ever state I was a fan of Blizzard or the game? No. I criticized the deliberate misrepresentation of specific details related to a specific product. My opinions of the product or its developer have nothing to do with it. You seem to be in a big hurry to criticize people for being fans however. I think you need to work out those issues somewhere else though rather than try to undermine someone else's legitimate complaint about a journalist's behavior.

New to Zero Punctuation, are we?

No I've been watching for several years now.

Yahtzee *never* plays multi-player because it is his belief that a game should be able to stand on its single player. Agree or disagree, that's how it is. I personally think it's a short-sighted opinion in some respects, and I agree that him making a inaccurate complaint about a mode he hasn't played is a bad call, but it doesn't really matter. He's the one making money from this, not you or me.

I don't care about his personal opinions as they don't apply to me, I may agree or disagree with him on some of them. What I will not stand for is the product being misrepresented. Even if it is a game I think is a terrible pile of crap, the second someone intentionally lies about it I will call them out.

Besides, in theory Diablo 3 should be playable and enjoyable in single player anyways. Otherwise it probably shouldn't offer the option. It always annoys me when people say that you have to play multi-player to truly "get" a game or enjoy it, yet the game has both single and multi-player options. So if the multi-player is the only "good" option, why bother having the single player if it's as half-assed as you imply?

I never said anything to that like. He made a criticism based on an uninformed assumption. That is ignorance. I never once implied that the online only single/multiplayer system is good or bad. You are.

The fanboi is strong with this one. You're making assumptions about how much of the game he played without even half a clue what you're talking about.

I never once stated I knew how much he played or how he played it. It's a rhetorical question. He uses them all the time. You're being a hypocrite now, applying a double standard between him and me, based on your personal bias towards the game and your perceived bias towards me for defending the issues I have opted to defend.

Obviously he knows this, otherwise he wouldn't have commented on the fact that he was playing it in single player and didn't want to play in multi-player. For someone insulting him for not playing the game, you sure didn't bother to listen to his review all that well.

I'm am perfectly within all rights to levy criticism to someone performing a review of something and deliberately misrepresenting that work. I would expect nothing less from anyone else, including yourself. Also, I never insulted him, so kindly refrain from lying about what I said.

....which isn't what he's saying. He's commenting on the fact that it seems idiotic to carry around a sword and then not have a melee option available to you at all times in addition to the various skills.

He insinuates that equipping those melee weapons has no effect. To paraphrase him "I started with a melee attack, but it was replaced when I learned the second spell, which strikes me as missing the forest through the trees, especially since I could still equip melee weapons but I would only be using them to scratch my black ass."

Are you sure you listened to what he said?

Ah, finally, a point we agree on. Your post was pretty shameful and pretty fanboi-ish.

Now that is an example of someone attempting to insulte someone else.

Lemme ask you two questions:

Okay

1) Exactly how much does it hurt that Yahtzee doesn't like your waifu?

Here you are attempting to insinuate that I have strong feelings towards Diablo 3 by comparing me to the infamous Japanese subculture group known as hikkimoris who opt to reject human interaction and adopt a relationship with inanimate 2d characters from anime.

Firstly, I never stated I like or even enjoy Diablo 3. That is completely irrelevant as you should realize by now I am opposed to his deliberate misrepresentation of any product and this is one such product whose (some) features are being misrepresented. If you actually want to know what my opinions are on Diablo 3 I would be happy to list them. I assume you don't but feel free to let me know.

Secondly, you're criticizing an entire cultural group by comparison because you don't like what I've said? That kind of makes you a jerk.

2) Why exactly does his dislike of the game frustrate you so much that you're feeling the need to post in an angry huff to dismiss his criticisms?

By now I've covered this. To clarify however, I did not dismiss his criticisms but called out invalid ones.

If the answer to either question is that this review does, indeed, rustle your jimmies so much, then perhaps that's because deep down in your brain somewheres, this review made you realize that it's not the flawless masterpiece you thought it was and that perhaps you're not enjoying the game as much as you think you are. Especially if you feel the need to get so hyper-defensive of it to the point where you're not even listening to what he said.

I would turn this right back around to you. Why do YOU feel the need to be "hyper-defensive" of Yahtzee when they are HIS opinions? Furthermore, why do you feel the need to be condescending towards another person for rightly calling out someone for deliberate inaccuracies that they have made? Are you doing so because I have offended your personal sensibilities and are perceiving an unjust attack against someone you admire? I believe that Yahtzee is perfectly capable of defending himself (though I confess I doubt he really cares what I have to say; valid criticisms or not).

Yahtzee's criticized a lot of games I happen to enjoy (Smash Bros, for example), and I just sorta laugh and go back to enjoying the game. There's no reason to get so hyped up over a negative review of a game you enjoyed unless the review is pointing out some inconvenient truths to you that you're desperate to shove out of your mind.

Your assumptions are mistaken. It is unfortunate that you opted not to ask my opinions before making these assumptions about me. You seem to have built up a rather inaccurate idea of who I am and why I made my original post. In the future I would encourage you to inquire before you fire.

No reference to Covetous Shen? He was clearly D3's best character. I love the mannerisms James Hong adds to him.

"Oh just look at this architecture! You can travel all over the world and never see it's like...oh well except for THAT part, I've seen that somewhere before."

Guess what happened after I watched this video? http://s15.postimage.org/vfctxakhn/Screenshot027.jpg

Not saying that a Blizzard game is THE GOD OF "INSERT GENRE HERE" is bound get loads of angry trolls. I tend to play the games Blizzard copies first and they are usually better

Random Fella:

The Forlorn:
I hope he didn't actually pay blizzard money to review the boring, shit game the with forced online. That would be contributing to more boring, shit, forced online games.

Have you ever actually played the game, or are you talking out your arse from what you've heard other people that haven't played the game say?

This line of reasoning is invalid. It's not a movie or a book or something we can't know almost everything about by watching gameplay footage and using the internet. Furthermore, it's Diablo THREE.

It's the THIRD installment of a game that came out in 1996 - that was already ripping off other games over a decade before that. Gauntlet was the same premise and that came out in 1985. 1985!!! Were you born yet?

No one needs to know that the same, mindless formula, of button mashing and pointless loot grabbing from different monsters in slightly differently arranged dungeons, is the same, mindless experience as before. In 1985 it was amazing. In 1996 it was kind of stupid, but still fun. Now, it's just embarrassing.

Oh, and you're forced to be online.

Bring on the Baldur's Gates, Icewind Dales and some real D&D rpg's, not this crude matter.

Yahtzee,
Review Dear Esther.

Grospoliner:
He's publishing a video that is misrepresenting the facts about a product, and if he knows he's doing it, then he's doing it deliberately. That is unethical.

Unethical? Wow, somehow you've managed to make that word lose its meaning, now.

"Unethical" refers to an act of blatant violation of a standard code of ethics in such a way that it leads to the harm or potential future harm of others. The BP oil spill was "unethical". Publishing a video on the internet with incorrect information (that he corrects in the credits, which you AGAIN are trying to ignore because those facts don't suit your narrative) isn't "unethical".

Again, most reviewers have deadlines to meet (especially Yahtzee who is on a payroll) and do not have time to re-do voiceovers for their videos just to sate people like you. They only have so much time to do the initial voice work, making corrections later is impossible without redoing that entire segment...or in Yahtzee's case, the entire video. Which is sort of unreasonable to ask of him. He's not IGN, with unlimited resources and advance press-access time for every game review. You have to be a little more reasonable as a viewer and accept that errors do occasionally happen, and they're not going to always have time to redo large portions of the video to fix this.

At best, they have time to edit the text of a video to note that they have a correction to make. Other reviewers do this ALL THE TIME and it doesn't make them the least bit less of a reviewer. One of my personal favorites, Linkara, has done this plenty of times.

It isn't unethical, it's just inaccurate. Let's not be absurd about this. Whining about the fact that he posted a text edit (which you apparently didn't see or read) rather than re-voicing the entire video is honestly rather childish and shows that you don't have a clue what goes into the process of creating videos like this on a regular schedule as your primary means of income.

Did I ever state I was a fan of Blizzard or the game? No. I criticized the deliberate misrepresentation of specific details related to a specific product.

Except, again, the correction is right there in the credits, so you can't claim he's misrepresenting facts if he's admitted to the error in the video itself. Stop trying to ignore the facts to suit your narrative, you're not Fox News.

My opinions of the product or its developer have nothing to do with it. You seem to be in a big hurry to criticize people for being fans however. I think you need to work out those issues somewhere else though rather than try to undermine someone else's legitimate complaint about a journalist's behavior.

Your complaint isn't legitimate, though, that's the problem here. He already corrected the error, you're just being redundant by repeating it, and stubborn by claiming that he didn't admit to the error when the evidence is right in front of your face.

No I've been watching for several years now.

Then I assume you did all of those other years of viewing before you had an Escapist profile, since your profile is about two years old. Fair enough, I'll take your word for it. Assuming you are a long-time viewer, you should be well aware of his "I don't do multi-player" policy.

I don't care about his personal opinions as they don't apply to me, I may agree or disagree with him on some of them. What I will not stand for is the product being misrepresented. Even if it is a game I think is a terrible pile of crap, the second someone intentionally lies about it I will call them out.

Except he obviously wasn't "intentionally lying about it" if he corrected himself in the credits of the video. Why lie in the video and then tell the truth in the credits if his goal was to "intentionally lie"?

I'm beginning to notice a theme of misrepresenting facts in your post, here.

I never said anything to that like. He made a criticism based on an uninformed assumption. That is ignorance. I never once implied that the online only single/multiplayer system is good or bad. You are.

Er, no, neither did I. I stated that a game which offers a single player option should not have it if the single player option isn't meant to be "the real way to play the game" as many of the game's fans have asserted so far.

I never once stated I knew how much he played or how he played it. It's a rhetorical question. He uses them all the time. You're being a hypocrite now, applying a double standard between him and me, based on your personal bias towards the game and your perceived bias towards me for defending the issues I have opted to defend.

"Did you even play the game?" is possibly the dumbest rhetorical question you could ask a game reviewer. Ever. I assumed you were intelligent enough to be asking the question seriously, because no one in their right mind would rhetorically ask a game reviewer if they had played the game they reviewed. That's just dumb. It's akin to asking a garbage man if he ever REALLY picked up and threw out the garbage or not. YES, he obviously did, so why would you ask even rhetorically? For lulz?

On the other hand, if you weren't being rhetorical, then you're just using that as an excuse to cover your ass. In either case it doesn't reflect well on you or your stance.

I'm am perfectly within all rights to levy criticism to someone performing a review of something and deliberately misrepresenting that work. I would expect nothing less from anyone else, including yourself. Also, I never insulted him, so kindly refrain from lying about what I said.

You're lying right now, because (for about the fifth time in this post alone) he didn't lie. He made a faulty statement based on a lack of information, and posted a correction in the credits. That's not lying. I can only assume you're repeating this line over and over because you have no actual argument and think that perhaps repetition will alter the reality of the situation. But it won't.

He insinuates that equipping those melee weapons has no effect. To paraphrase him "I started with a melee attack, but it was replaced when I learned the second spell, which strikes me as missing the forest through the trees, especially since I could still equip melee weapons but I would only be using them to scratch my black ass."

Are you sure you listened to what he said?

I'm pretty sure I read the statement more correctly than you did, yes. You may want to take a moment and actually think about the line you quoted.

"I started with a melee attack, but it was replaced when I learned the second spell" is the leading portion of that statement. This implies that the comments which follow that statement are also referring to that same line of thought: that being his sudden loss of access to the melee attack, and having to go into the skill selection menu in order to re-equip the melee attack. He wasn't referring to attributes anywhere in that statement, so there's no reason to interpret his comment as referring to attributes. Also, judging from the way in which he says the quoted statement (all in one burst) suggests that it is all one conscious thought, as people don't normally string spoken sentences from one thought into another without a slight pause (and you can tell when Yahtzee has changed tracks because said pause is short, but noticeable every time he changes topics).

So yes, I'm pretty certain that I know what he meant. I suggest you listen to the video again and perhaps you'll pick up on the fact that this was clearly one line of continuous thought.

Here you are attempting to insinuate that I have strong feelings towards Diablo 3 by comparing me to the infamous Japanese subculture group known as hikkimoris who opt to reject human interaction and adopt a relationship with inanimate 2d characters from anime.

Congratulations, I can use Wikipedia too. It doesn't really make you seem more intelligent, though, sadly.

Firstly, I never stated I like or even enjoy Diablo 3. That is completely irrelevant as you should realize by now I am opposed to his deliberate misrepresentation of any product and this is one such product whose (some) features are being misrepresented.

This is now the sixth time you said this in a single post. And it's STILL wrong. I'm not going to keep saying it over and over. From now on, I'm just going to put an arrow pointing upwards, like so:

^

If you actually want to know what my opinions are on Diablo 3 I would be happy to list them. I assume you don't but feel free to let me know.

You would be correct in that assumption.

Secondly, you're criticizing an entire cultural group by comparison because you don't like what I've said? That kind of makes you a jerk.

What an adorable non-point you have there.

By now I've covered this. To clarify however, I did not dismiss his criticisms but called out invalid ones.

^

I would turn this right back around to you. Why do YOU feel the need to be "hyper-defensive" of Yahtzee when they are HIS opinions?

Mer? Pardon me, good sir, but I was attacking your post, not defending Yahtzee. I understand that you can't tell the difference, but there most certainly is one.

When Yahtzee is wrong, I've happily pointed such out. But you were probably about the fiftieth person in this thread (And as such, you've won a fabulous door prize. Have this puppy!) to make the incorrect statement that "YAHTZEE'S LYING" about a statement that he had already self-corrected, presumably just to make it seem like you "knew more about the game" than the paid video game reviewer. Well that's well and good for you, but he already beat you to the correction, and he's still the one getting paid for this job, not you.

Furthermore, why do you feel the need to be condescending towards another person for rightly calling out someone for deliberate inaccuracies that they have made?

^

Are you doing so because I have offended your personal sensibilities and are perceiving an unjust attack against someone you admire?

lulwat. Yahtzee's an asshat. The only thing I admire about him is his willingness to be rather blunt about his likes or dislikes, something I can't generally do in public as my friends have much different tastes than I do. But in general he's the sort of person I legitimately have no interest in ever meeting, he's just not a like-able individual.

I'm only "defending" him in the sense that I'm attacking your absurd argument. I'm hardly doing so because I "admire him". I simply think that your post was completely redundant and totally unnecessary. You're hardly the first person to make the same statement in this thread, and he had already beaten every single one of you to the punch with this argument anyways. Yours just happened to be the most recent one at the time of thread reading and I didn't care to quote several pages of the same dumb argument repeated ad infinitum.

I believe that Yahtzee is perfectly capable of defending himself (though I confess I doubt he really cares what I have to say; valid criticisms or not).

And he already did defend himself. In the video that you apparently didn't watch all the way through.

So why did you post a criticism that he had already responded to, exactly?

Your assumptions are mistaken. It is unfortunate that you opted not to ask my opinions before making these assumptions about me. You seem to have built up a rather inaccurate idea of who I am and why I made my original post. In the future I would encourage you to inquire before you fire.

I'm not largely interested in your interests. The fact that you made an inaccurate statement and then continue to defend it as accurate when it's not is what annoys me, nothing more. If you were smart about this, you'd just admit that Yahtzee already beat you to the criticism of his own review (and noted that he knew he was wrong and that people didn't need to post telling him about it), and back down. But the fact that you replied to my post and continue to insist that he didn't already correct himself (when the proof is in the video) shows that you're not picking your battles wisely here. Just admit to your error and back down, like you would expect Yahtzee to do.

Hitchmeister:

Calibanbutcher:

Hitchmeister:

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

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

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

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

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

So you've never watched a Yahtzee review before?

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

The Forlorn:
snipe

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

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

WDK89:
It's always fun to read the forum after Yatzee gives a popular game a bad review.

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

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

@Diablo3

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

Chew Kok:
Yahtzee,
Review Dear Esther.

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

Undeadpool:

WDK89:
It's always fun to read the forum after Yatzee gives a popular game a bad review.

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

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

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

Ah, so you went back to watch the video, saw that you were wrong, and knew that you needed to bail out of this conversation. So you opted for the "you don't know what you're talking about, so I'm going to pretend to leave in a huff!" route. Bravo.

Course, you would have saved a lot more face by just admitting to your error. But that's okay. I accept your apology, and I'm glad you at least had the competence to admit you were wrong, turn tail and run. And I don't blame you for that. It's perfectly okay to be wrong sometimes, and admitting to it is, in fact, socially acceptable. But not everyone has the courage to admit to their errors in public when they've been called out in front of everyone like this.

Anyways, have a nice day!

Undeadpool:

WDK89:
It's always fun to read the forum after Yatzee gives a popular game a bad review.

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

MAAAAAN! This ain't my dad....this is a video game!

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Diablo 3

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

Watch Video

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

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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here