It's just a bunch of whiny cunts who are unfairly reviewing a game because of a poor release. They reflect badly on the community and make us look like a bunch of children. IMO

Well I had someone buy me the game as a gift, so I can't really give two shits about anything it does. The 5 minutes I played was fun.

step 1. hear that its going to be online only/read box which states need for internet
step 2. decide whether you care or not
step 3. if not then enjoy/ if so don't buy it and play something else

does it need to be any more complex than this?

Elamdri:

Rooster Cogburn:
Sorry for chopping up your posts, it helps my brain to think good. I don't want you to take it as condescending.

Elamdri:
Just play the game online.

I don't want to or can't, for different reasons at different times. I'll list some if you want me to, but I think I would just be listing things you already know.

It's an online game, not a single-player game.

Only in the sense that it has DRM which requires a permanent connection. In every other sense it is a single player game as well as a coop game, like many games of it's type.

Well actually it is an online game. All the items and enemies are handled server-side.

Rooster Cogburn:

Elamdri:
Newsflash: People are whiny bitches. The servers are working fine now after the maintenance, it's not like every online game in the past 5 years hasn't had day one server issues. The RMAH isn't going to be the ruination of society. Always online DRM isn't an issue unless you are a pirate or you live in the boondocks and your internet sucks, in which case you probably have bigger problems, like trying to get out of the boondocks.

I have never pirated a game, nor do I intend to. I also don't live in the boondocks, and a lack of acceptable access to high speed internet service isn't my reason for not wanting to be shackled by ludicrous DRM.

Well, since I've come back around to my first point, I'll list one reason I might not like always-online DRM. Maybe my router is on one side of the house and my room is on the other. Do I need a better reason than that? I feel like I shouldn't have to explain why I want to play offline singleplayer.

And if I did live in the boondocks with little or no internet access, I think that would be more than enough reason to complain about this obnoxious requirement. I get that it doesn't effect or bother you, but I don't understand why you are so dismissive of those who don't like it, whatever their reasons. Even to the point of telling them to just deal if they literally cannot play the game at all.

This is going to sound callous, but I used to live in a place that had crappy internet, and one of the key reasons that I moved was because I wanted a better internet connection. I don't think that the DRM is bad.

In fact, you know what? I like always-on DRM.

I like it.

I pay for my games. It infuriates me that others don't. The DRM in Diablo 3 is an effective way to stop others from gaming the system. And I like that. If I can't get it for free, neither should anyone else. If there is some collateral damage there, so be it.

Also, I will admit there is a sense of schadenfreude from seeing people whine on the internet.

Always on DRM doesn't mean what you think it does. It's not effective. Assassins Creed 2 had it. It was emulated, and cracked. In fact, it's extremely unlikely that you could make a piece of successful always on DRM, and any failed attempt makes that version less valuable than the pirated one.

Now, I've got reasonably good net, but my Assassins Creed 2 crashes every hour or so, thanks to failed server checks. Which is unacceptable. Which doesn't affect pirates.

I think people should actually understand how pirated copies of games work before praising DRM.

Mundus33:
step 1. hear that its going to be online only/read box which states need for internet
step 2. decide whether you care or not
step 3. if not then enjoy/ if so don't buy it and play something else

does it need to be any more complex than this?

Slightly more complex. In addition to your points, Blizzard made dumb promises they couldn't keep and people want them held accountable and they also wanted an excuse to talk about the DRM because the discussion died down quickly after it was first announced.

Well, I looked through those reviews, and most of them say the same exact things with same exact phrases, just mixed up a bit. Bot attack, anyone?

On the subject of D3 I have this to say: I love it. Was playing for 16 hours straight yesterday through nightmare difficulty with 2 random guys. I can't even remember when was the last time I played ANY game for more than 6 hours straight.

And I have to admit, I was sceptic about D3 when I heard about skill and stat changes. BUT, after reaching level 50 it all made sense. If this was diablo 2, i would be stuck using 2-3 skills i've put points in, whereas now in D3 i can choose between about 50 to suit any role I chose (tanking in a party and playing solo are VERY different in Nightmare... doubly so for Hell). Not all of them seem usefull to me, but others compliment my playstyle greatly.

Now, I know there are some problems with the game, such as connection issues and lags, balance issues and lack of PVP. I am at the moment quite unhappy with loot drops on higher difficulties,hopefull they will fix that. Diablo 2 came out what, 12 years ago? Last patch came in 2009 I believe. Its Blizzard after all)

About this whole online-only thing: it's 2012, if you don't have internet then you live in a cave in Zimbabweh. I live in a crappy town in the middle of Russia (yeah, bears on unicicles) and i can afford 15mbit/s connection. If online-only is a deal-breaker for you - simply don't buy the game.

doggie015:

zombieshark6666:
I think it's sad that the zeroes will probably be deleted even though people have a right to be angry about not being able to play a single-player game offline. They warned about this before release! I don't care, people should be able to use whatever they purchased.

They haven't deleted the unfair and/or paid-for-by-EA and/or BF3-fanboy-bitching-against-a-good-game zeros from the rating of MW3 yet... Why should they start deleting legitimate zeros from ratings now?

I was thinking about Dragon Age 2, the "pinnacle of role-playing games with well-designed mechanics and excellent story-telling, [...] what videogames are meant to be."

axlryder:
It's just a bunch of whiny cunts who are unfairly reviewing a game because of a poor release. They reflect badly on the community and make us look like a bunch of children. IMO

Children don't disagree with bad practices or unnecessary technical problems, they just enjoy the gaems and eat pogos.

I support taking actual action against DRM, etc. but while I think the scores are unfair as scores for the whole game, they're user scores - no-one gets to tell you what your criteria are, that's just the score you give. If servers and DRM are all that matter to a lot of people, why shouldn't a game get a pitiful user score?

Mundus33:
step 1. hear that its going to be online only/read box which states need for internet
step 2. decide whether you care or not
step 3. if not then enjoy/ if so don't buy it and play something else

does it need to be any more complex than this?

Sadly for most people it's not that simple. And I really don't get why. All those problems were forseeable, even most of the people I know who bought D3 did not even attempted to play on the first days.

I really don't get it...

DustyDrB:
I'm against always online (though Diablo III and that kind of game in general don't interest me), but Metacritic bombing is just dumb. Review scores have always been pretty irrelevant to me, but now user reviews in general on sites like Metacritic and Amazon have lost all their credibility.

I found them really useful, much more than professional reviews. The Escapist review, for example, fails to say that several of the monk weapon animations are not in the game and that the game still has a lot of game-breaking issues.

The game was so unplayable that we had to wait to see professional reviews, because even them could not play it. Also, the professional review is still incomplete, as some key aspects of the game are not even implemented, like PVP and the real money AH.

If it was a minor company, we could forgive some of it, but Blizzard spent 10 years on a flawed product.

User reviews are a great indicator of public reaction to the game. Professional reviewers have the obligation to, regardless of the score, give a fair assessment of the game, and they frequently fail to do that. A User review must express that one user very particular opinion - and the metacritic zeros send a very clear message in this regard.

Let's be honest. The game is good but it is overpriced and the always online stuff is terrible from a consumer point of view - even if it worked flawless at launch. Letīs see a quick rundown of the current problems with the game:

1. My single player game lags (and my internet is fine);
2. The monk animations are not there;
3. I am occasionally kicked out of my game (still);
4. I cannot do PVP;
5. My save progress was erased last night;
6. Achievements do not work;
7. The shield game-breaking bug is still in effect;
8. Logging in is much better but still not always possible (and it will never be).

Also, some design decisions makes the game boring as hell at the beginning for some(locked normal difficulty, no stats allocation and very few skills to work with). Things do pick up later with more skills to play with, but once again, Blizzard is offering less choices to us.

This does not look like a finished product to me, specially not one from Blizzard. It is not the end of the world and Blizzard will probably fix all those things in record time (we hope), but if a zero score means an unfinished, unplayable game I would say that's exactly the experience that some players are having with the game.

Mcoffey:

shintakie10:

Mcoffey:

The difference is I can say I want no one in my game in Diablo III. "Solo Function" Just means Single Player. Diablo III isn't an MMO.

Except you have to be online to play that single player mode. I don't mean you need an internet connection so they can authenticate you Assassins Creed style. You literally have to be online because the vast majority of the game is on a server, not your computer. D3 is the closest you can get to an MMO without actually bein an MMO.

Once again, solo play.

And that is why Diablo III is broken to me. There is no justifiable reason to be online to play single player. Having most of the content on the server is just more anti-consumer, drm bullshit.
That it is on the server doesn't mean it's not a single player game, it just means Blizzard made an incredibly stupid decision.

Alternatively, the fact that Diablo 3 is basically a form of slot machine probably means that in order for the RMAH to not be illegal in many areas, Blizzard has to be able to prove a number of things regarding the drop rates to local gaming commissions. I believe that Korea forced Blizzard to remove the RMAH for this very reason.

Why people continue to spout this "it's a single player game" idiocy is something I'll likely never understand, it doesn't really matter whether it's single player or not, it's online only, end of story. Businesses have the right to make their products the way they want them to be, just as you have the right to not buy their product. If enough people don't buy it, they either change the product, or go out of business. This whole nerdraging going on over this makes me wish there had been an internet during the transition from horses to horseless carriages, would have been so funny to read the rage.

ry. Businesses have the right to make their products the way they want them to be

Correct. And any sane person understands that customers have a right to not only avoid buying, but also complain about flawed products, particularly when they could encourage other companies to copy the flawed practice.

As simple as that. Please understand that you will have to deal with people criticizing things when a company screws up. If that makes your butt sore because you feel with the company for some reason, I suggest either lube, or avoiding metacritic.

Face it: A lot of people do not like what Blizzard did. Diablo III is catching flak for many different reasons, all of them legitimate. It's not just the DRM, it's that it is an unfinished game.

Quite frankly, they deserve the review bombing. From a neutral point of view, you absolutely cannot condemn these reviews. They are simply correct.

had been an internet during the transition from horses to horseless carriages, would have been so funny to read the rage.

Wow. You're serious. I cannot believe that you're truly so ignorant.

You are aware that in ye olden times, people had this thing called "mail", right? A number of companies actually got buried with mail when they did particularly bad things. Oddly, they changed their nonsense quickly after that happened.

See, the internet doesn't magically create "nerd rage". The internet just creates fanboy rage, such as yours.

zombieshark6666:

axlryder:
It's just a bunch of whiny cunts who are unfairly reviewing a game because of a poor release. They reflect badly on the community and make us look like a bunch of children. IMO

Children don't disagree with bad practices or unnecessary technical problems, they just enjoy the gaems and eat pogos.

Pfft, zero bombing a game that clearly is not as bad as the absolute worst there is (which is what would actually warrant a 0) on a review site is acting like a child, i.e., kicking and screaming. A ton of people were reviewing the LAUNCH, not the game itself. That's fucking stupid. Knock a few points off for the DRM, fine, but don't write zero without having even played the game (as a LOT of people clearly did).

Player reviews are a terrible basis on which to purchase a game. That score will be because angry keyboard smashing players threw a hissy at the servers being busy on release day, so they jumped on the meta-critic score to throw said hissy.

That said, it deserves the low score for that sneaky DRM.

axlryder:

zombieshark6666:

axlryder:
It's just a bunch of whiny cunts who are unfairly reviewing a game because of a poor release. They reflect badly on the community and make us look like a bunch of children. IMO

Children don't disagree with bad practices or unnecessary technical problems, they just enjoy the gaems and eat pogos.

Pfft, zero bombing a game that does NOT deserve to be zero bombed on a review site is acting like a child, i.e., kicking and screaming. People are reviewing the LAUNCH, not the game itself. That's fucking stupid. Knock a few points off for the DRM, fine, but don't write zero without having even played the game (as a LOT of people clearly did).

I don't disagree necessarily, but to each their own criteria. Just because of the physics, I don't think Shift 2 deserves more than a 2/10, frankly. If the rest is fine and one thing makes the whole experience awful, I'm fine with a terrible score. I'm always more angry at "pro" reviews that give great scores not matter what. Users don't have to be objective.

zombieshark6666:

axlryder:

zombieshark6666:

Children don't disagree with bad practices or unnecessary technical problems, they just enjoy the gaems and eat pogos.

Pfft, zero bombing a game that does NOT deserve to be zero bombed on a review site is acting like a child, i.e., kicking and screaming. People are reviewing the LAUNCH, not the game itself. That's fucking stupid. Knock a few points off for the DRM, fine, but don't write zero without having even played the game (as a LOT of people clearly did).

I don't disagree necessarily, but to each their own criteria. Just because of the physics, I don't think Shift 2 deserves more than a 2/10, frankly. If the rest is fine and one thing makes the whole experience awful, I'm fine with a terrible score. I'm always more angry at "pro" reviews that give great scores not matter what. Users don't have to be objective.

You're right, they don't have to be objective, but I still think it makes them look like whiny children. Thus my initial post. Personally, I was dissatisfied with almost every aspect of this game, but I like to think operating on a knee-jerk reaction and scoring the equivalent of "worst thing ever" is really unfair to the developers.

I agree that some proffessional reviewers arent proffessional at all.
I agree that Diablo 3 had major launch issues and that having to stay online while playing single player sucks.
But that's about it.

I found Diablo 3 to be quite the good game, and the 3.3 user rating again shows that metacritic is unreliable. If the ME3 incident didnt proove it to me, this pretty much sealed the deal.

Metacritic is a good indicator of which games managed to massively piss off their audience, and which didn't.

It doesn't need to be more than that.

Loonyyy:

Always on DRM doesn't mean what you think it does. It's not effective. Assassins Creed 2 had it. It was emulated, and cracked. In fact, it's extremely unlikely that you could make a piece of successful always on DRM, and any failed attempt makes that version less valuable than the pirated one.

Now, I've got reasonably good net, but my Assassins Creed 2 crashes every hour or so, thanks to failed server checks. Which is unacceptable. Which doesn't affect pirates.

I think people should actually understand how pirated copies of games work before praising DRM.

There are different types of DRM. Assassin's Creed DRM was just to check with a server every once in a while to make sure that the game was legit.

In contrast, Diablo 3's DRM is part of the entire game. Almost all of the game is handled server side, the program on your computer is just a client.

In order to pirate that, you need to set up a emulated private server that does everything the official Blizzard servers do. Not impossible, and I'm sure there are enough pirates out there that will do it, but what it does do is keep the rank and file plebs from pirating as well.

Hell, eventually I think all games are going to be handled the way On-Live is handled, where you purchase a game license and then stream the entire game over a remote server.

Mcoffey:

Spearmaster:
The game works great now, saying its a failure because of a rocky first few hours is like cancelling your internet/cable for good because it doesn't magically hook its self up the split second you order it, people don't do that, why do it with D3...maybe the DRM issue? Having to be online to play a game is nothing new. Heard of an MMO? What about all the multiplayer games people enjoy online only? Those must be horrible to, go bomb them. I do feel for the people out in the sticks that don't have reliable internet, I was one of them for years it sucks but to all the other people complaining about the always online when they are always online anyway...Dig in your pockets and actually buy a PC game for once in your life.

I say that because I personally know people like that, they do exist and will bash a game because they cant DL it and play for free, sorry for outing all you pirates out there (not really)

I have no problem with a game company requiring authentication to play a game, I also don't have a problem if you refuse to buy it on those grounds. I DO have a problem with people that are whining about having to be online that say they wont support the game giving it bad reviews based on that or any false reason they can come up with, Especially when a lot of those people are gonna be playing and enjoying the game in a few weeks anyway when it stops being "cool" to bash D3 for being online.

The difference is Diablo is a single player game with a multiplayer component. So, why should I be always online for a function I will never use? Why should I have to restart my single player campaign three times just because their servers are shitty? There is no justification good enough to excuse it. It is an inherently broken aspect of the game.

Anyway, I see two good things coming out of this. One is that more people will be aware of the broken aspects of Diablo III before they consider dropping 60-100 nonrefundable dollars on it. Knowledge is the best weapon against consumer-hating tactics like this.

Two, is that it will most likely weaken the strong publisher support of Metacritic, so then hard-working developers don't get cheated out of bonuses for getting an 84 instead of an 85.

Sorry I would have replied to your reply sooner but I was busy playing Diablo 3 in which I haven't had any of the problems people are complaining about and I am enjoying the hell out of it. The only consumer hating tactics are the ones performed by the people unfairly bombing this game and and trying keep people from enjoying a good fun Diablo experience.

The always online only seems to be more of a game feature than a problem for me because it makes joining games or friends joining my game easy plus the auction house can only function online to sell and buy items from other players without spamming in the server room chat or creating the "trading perfect skulls for perfect rubys" games and standing in town for 3 hours waiting like in Diablo 2 but nobody wants to look at the benefit of having all the online stuff.

Metacritic review bombing: Yet another ineffective way to show you don't like one thing about an otherwise decent game, lack the cognitive power to put your words into intelligent discourse and thus resort to lashing out at a developer who made a mistake on server loads.
I will not be dragged into the DRM discussion, nor the always-online discussion. Just because it seems that a large portion of the vocal Escapist users aren't interested in discussion, but rather only care if you agree with their opinion. If not, you're apparently an idiot who should stop playing games. I love how superior and ego-ridden "gamers" are today. As if being a gamer and having a negative opinion about most big publishers somehow validates your supremacy...

Spearmaster:

Mcoffey:

Spearmaster:
The game works great now, saying its a failure because of a rocky first few hours is like cancelling your internet/cable for good because it doesn't magically hook its self up the split second you order it, people don't do that, why do it with D3...maybe the DRM issue? Having to be online to play a game is nothing new. Heard of an MMO? What about all the multiplayer games people enjoy online only? Those must be horrible to, go bomb them. I do feel for the people out in the sticks that don't have reliable internet, I was one of them for years it sucks but to all the other people complaining about the always online when they are always online anyway...Dig in your pockets and actually buy a PC game for once in your life.

I say that because I personally know people like that, they do exist and will bash a game because they cant DL it and play for free, sorry for outing all you pirates out there (not really)

I have no problem with a game company requiring authentication to play a game, I also don't have a problem if you refuse to buy it on those grounds. I DO have a problem with people that are whining about having to be online that say they wont support the game giving it bad reviews based on that or any false reason they can come up with, Especially when a lot of those people are gonna be playing and enjoying the game in a few weeks anyway when it stops being "cool" to bash D3 for being online.

The difference is Diablo is a single player game with a multiplayer component. So, why should I be always online for a function I will never use? Why should I have to restart my single player campaign three times just because their servers are shitty? There is no justification good enough to excuse it. It is an inherently broken aspect of the game.

Anyway, I see two good things coming out of this. One is that more people will be aware of the broken aspects of Diablo III before they consider dropping 60-100 nonrefundable dollars on it. Knowledge is the best weapon against consumer-hating tactics like this.

Two, is that it will most likely weaken the strong publisher support of Metacritic, so then hard-working developers don't get cheated out of bonuses for getting an 84 instead of an 85.

Sorry I would have replied to your reply sooner but I was busy playing Diablo 3 in which I haven't had any of the problems people are complaining about and I am enjoying the hell out of it. The only consumer hating tactics are the ones performed by the people unfairly bombing this game and and trying keep people from enjoying a good fun Diablo experience.

The always online only seems to be more of a game feature than a problem for me because it makes joining games or friends joining my game easy plus the auction house can only function online to sell and buy items from other players without spamming in the server room chat or creating the "trading perfect skulls for perfect rubys" games and standing in town for 3 hours waiting like in Diablo 2 but nobody wants to look at the benefit of having all the online stuff.

"It's not a problem, it's a feature!"

It's still shackling to the people who have no interest in being online in their single player game. I'm happy for you that you've had no problems, but when so many people have and for no reason, it still makes the always-online impossible to justify.

And while review bombing is most of the time pointless and all of the time childish, I'm sure there are plenty of people giving it a legitimate bad review. What score would you give a game that you cant play? If you dropped 60 bucks on something (That you cannot return or get a refund on) that did not function, what score would you think it deserves?

Now I'm not saying even most of the review bombings are cases of this. Review bombs are in vogue now and it's going to happen to every big release in the foreseeable future, but there are probably a good number that are genuine dissatisfaction. And they deserve to be heard.

sevenrings:
Is it really review bombing when people are giving zeros to a game they bought but couldn't play because of a publishers failure? Reviews get docked all the time for buggy games. The way I see it, if they should get docked for the experience being marred by bugs then a zero is a justified score if they are completely unplayable. Its not a matter of entitlement, its a matter of getting what you paid for.

If you bought a phone and you couldn't connect to the providers network because of some failing in the phone or the providers service it doesn't matter how great the features on the phone are because you can't use them. It wouldn't be entitlement to want your money back and consider the experience poor.

Exactly my point. Thank you.

You know, saying all THESE things about people who negatively voted on a game...

axlryder:
fucking stupid.

axlryder:
bunch of whiny cunts

axlryder:
acting like a child

... is way closer to kicking and screaming, than the act of the negative voting itself. You don't like their exact methods of voting? You think that they should fairly analyze every element of the game, and compare it to others, instead of just voting based on an emotional first impression? Fine. Different methods, I guess. But it doesn't make you more mature than them, neither more calm or level-headed.

Acting agressively and offensively, is far more likely to portray us negatively, than any kind of poll usage.

For all I know, the zerobombers can be all knowledgeable gamers concerned about what this DRM represents, who decided to create bad press for the game months ago based on their ideological reasons, and strategically waited until now, while you are the one who is smashing his keyboard and foaming from the mouth in a knee-jerk reaction to their action. It's hard to tell, since all of us are just interacting through pushing buttons, but so far, you are giving me more material to work with.

Ashannon Blackthorn:
Here's the be all and end all for this as far as I can see. If you do not like the DRM, or the online requirement, or the direction Blizzard took the game. Do not buy it, do not play it and leave those who want to play it alone.

But doesn't "leave those alone" just mean "don't criticize Blizzard?" I mean, are you being harassed or something?

Blizzard does not owe any of you a thing and none of you owe Blizzard anything either. All the posts I've seen about this come down to "I want this game how I want it."

Well of course I want the game how I want it. And I'm going to say so. That's what we do. We talk about stuff.

Guess what? It's not your game. Blizzard announced a long time ago about the online requirement, the real money Ah and all that. They publically said it was going to be hell first few days. You have absolutely no reason to complain...

I would never kick you in the balls, but if I did, I would give you a warning first. I assume you still object to being kicked 'squa' in the nootz'. The point I'm trying to make is it's nice that we were given fair warning, but it still sucks ass.

I actually commend and respect those who refuse to buy the game for the above reasons. I detest the whiney self entitled folk who think that Blizzard has to answer to them and do what they want.

edited to be less angry.. angry man is angry.

No offense, but it sounds like the only difference between the two is whether or not they criticize Blizzard.

IamLEAM1983:
Or you can, y'know, give the auction house and the multiplayer components the shaft. The only things Blizzard are getting from me are the occasional data packets sent to the authentication server. It's not like the RMAH is being shoved down your throat.

Not to mention that by its own setup, Diablo III is very much NOT a Pay-to-Win title. If I choose to play alone, the only competition I have to face is myself. If I ever open my game to the public, I can choose to either obsess over some complete unknown's arbitrarily better gear, or just take a chill pill, choose not to give a fuck, and keep playing.

If you're looking for an easy target to throw scorn at, I'd redirect your ire towards anyone who'll be fish enough to actually buy this or that rare set, once actual paid-for acquisitions are enabled. All I know is I won't be one of them. I won't care if someone's build strategy tells me that I absolutely need this or that piece of gear - I can either adhere to the proposed strategy or not give a damn and just go about my business.

This game has a significant multiplayer component. Many consider it the game's core appeal. It's true you don't have to play multiplayer. But the real money auction house impacts your multiplayer experience in big ways even if you never put a dime into it. You said it is not pay-to-win, but your description matches pay-to-win exactly. Diablo III is a pay-to-win title because you can buy a significant in-game advantage and bypass content by paying money.

The real money auction house affects game balance, your power relative to other players, and your ability to beat content relative to other players you interact with. It impacts the all-important sense of fair play, the satisfaction of challenge and accomplishment, and the concept of the auction house itself. It arguably guts the whole point of playing the game past the credits. There are also other design decisions which may or may not favor funneling people into the auction house over fun and convenience.

Now if none of that matters to you in a multiplayer title, that's fair enough. But I think you can see the issue doesn't disappear when you put your head in the sand. Not that you are doing that. You said it doesn't bother you and I have no reason to doubt it. But it bothers me.

Now please indulge me by letting me vent a little bit: I can't fucking believe I have to defend the concept of playing a game without fucking money involved. Can you see why I feel like the fucking last sane person on earth? Whew, I feel better. Sorry.

I have to giggle profusely at people saying that there are more mature ways to complain about the problems Diablo 3 has. Because you presume that no one has already done those things. You think no one has complained to Blizzard about the Always-On DRM? About the lack of LAN play? About any of the massive issues the game has? I'll bet they have, but Blizzard thinks it's too big to fail these days. They don't care.

So Blizzard deserves a bit of flak for this game, to be honest. It's not at all what they promised to give their fans back in '08. It's a "polished" Diablo 2 with WoW-coloring. Is a zero unfair? I might be inclined to say yes for people who have actually been able to play it without any difficulties. But on the other hand, a game that doesn't work for the player purchasing it is effectively worth nothing, and it seems the number of people who have had issues with the game is rather significant, judging from web searches alone.

Fun fact: type "err" into a Google web search, see what comes up as the first suggestion. Or type "error 37" into a Google image search and just stare at the WALL of memes.

Sorry, nope, the rage here is more justified than some of the other recent rage-fests.

Rooster Cogburn:
The real money auction house affects game balance, your power relative to other players, and your ability to beat content relative to other players you interact with. It impacts the all-important sense of fair play, the satisfaction of challenge and accomplishment, and the concept of the auction house itself. It arguably guts the whole point of playing the game past the credits. There are also other design decisions which may or may not favor funneling people into the auction house over fun and convenience.

Now if none of that matters to you in a multiplayer title, that's fair enough. But I think you can see the issue doesn't disappear when you put your head in the sand. Not that you are doing that. You said it doesn't bother you and I have no reason to doubt it. But it bothers me.

Now please indulge me by letting me vent a little bit: I can't fucking believe I have to defend the concept of playing a game without fucking money involved. Can you see why I feel like the fucking last sane person on earth? Whew, I feel better. Sorry.

Fair enough, but I'm curious to hear why you're bothered by other people having more proficient gear. See, D3 bases everything offensive on the value of your equipped weapon. You're playing as a Witch Doctor? Then find the cudgel or the hand axe with the biggest stats you can early on in the game, and you'll basically clean house. The Offense and Defense stats are virtually the only ones that matter. Everything else - even the uniques' sometimes fairly jaw-dropping stats - feels secondary in nature.

Considering that, wouldn't your personal spoils be enough? The game is never unfair as to leave you with improper weapons in a particularly hard stretch. Seeing as every build Blizz has planned for (if you don't use Elective Mode) is designed to be functional, even entry level spells like the Zombie Dogs are going to be relevant sixty levels down the line.

So when the only things that really matter are how much you can hit and how much damage you can soak, obsessing over some overpriced item in the RMAH just feels a little idiotic to me.

In a sense, D3 is only going to be Pay-to-Win if you put it in your mind that you *have* to be the alpha dog on the team, the one doing the most damage. It doesn't help that the inventory screen shows you your character's DPS - further accentuating the WoW-ish dispositions they'd like their players to take.

Just focus on upping these two base values. Your own item drops will suffice. If, on the other hand, you're trying to build some guy for PVP (which I have no idea if it is even possible in D3), then you might be in for a little more finagling.

The antidote for this is obvious: play with friends. Everyone has their own drops, but all items you discard from your inventory are visible to all. If your friends are the least bit thoughtful, they might run into something that'll work well for your class or your build.

Rooster Cogburn:
But doesn't "leave those alone" just mean "don't criticize Blizzard?" I mean, are you being harassed or something?

Harassed? Have you seen half the Diablo III threads on this forum? seems like every 3rd post is either a spambot impressionist going on about how good some similar indie game is or "LOL ERROR 37 ENJOY YOUR GAME SHEEP."

Well of course I want the game how I want it. And I'm going to say so. That's what we do. We talk about stuff.

This'd hold more merit if half the complaints weren't just "We want Diablo III to be Diablo II again!"

No offense, but it sounds like the only difference between the two is whether or not they criticize Blizzard.

The difference is one acknowledges that other people can still enjoy the game while the other basically goes "Well I'm not going to have fun playing this, so I don't want anyone else to enjoy it either."

Now please indulge me by letting me vent a little bit: I can't fucking believe I have to defend the concept of playing a game without fucking money involved. Can you see why I feel like the fucking last sane person on earth? Whew, I feel better. Sorry.

If you don't like the Auction House then don't use it, and if you're so adhered to the concept of "I got this gear by winning glorified dice rolls" being somehow better than "I got this gear by buying it" that you refuse to play with anyone who does the latter then just roll a Hardcore, they can't access the RMAH and have their own separate servers.

Alterego-X:
You know, saying all THESE things about people who negatively voted on a game...

axlryder:
fucking stupid.

axlryder:
bunch of whiny cunts

axlryder:
acting like a child

... is way closer to kicking and screaming, than the act of the negative voting itself. You don't like their exact methods of voting? You think that they should fairly analyze every element of the game, and compare it to others, instead of just voting based on an emotional first impression? Fine. Different methods, I guess. But it doesn't make you more mature than them, neither more calm or level-headed.

Acting agressively and offensively, is far more likely to portray us negatively, than any kind of poll usage.

For all I know, the zerobombers can be all knowledgeable gamers concerned about what this DRM represents, who decided to create bad press for the game months ago based on their ideological reasons, and strategically waited until now, while you are the one who is smashing his keyboard and foaming from the mouth in a knee-jerk reaction to their action. It's hard to tell, since all of us are just interacting through pushing buttons, but so far, you are giving me more material to work with.

What a needless post. "For all you know" is about right, because I actually read the reviews when they first started tumbling in. The vast majority were people who got broad sided by the launch, as evinced by their less than insightful assessment of the situation. The reviews were mostly written from a typical "I want it now" mindset and a few tried to justify their abysmally low scores further by citing other complaints about the early game (many valid complaints, but clearly not significant enough to rationally warrant a 0 or 1, especially considering the WELL established review system where 7=mediocre and 5=bad). A vast portion of other reviews where basically people whining that this wasn't Diablo II. Again, fine, but hardly a good enough reason to give the game a 0. Also, I'm posting on a website for gamers where gamers will most likely see it. They're posting on website where non-gamers (movie and music fans) are far more likely to see their behavior and their poor justification for their scores(all the more so now that the Diablo user reviews are being highlighted on the front page, though a more reasonable one is the main focus). This is a FORUM designed for colloquial chatter and many people on this website are already familiar with the communities' good and bad points. Finally, harshly worded language is just that. Using it doesn't magically make someone immature no matter how badly you wish it did. If anything, going out of your way to attack someone's maturity level just because they said someone was acting like a child (and actually gave a reason for it) doesn't reflect particularly positively on you either, especially considering your own hyperbolic description of my behavior.

Also, are you really one to talk about posting offensive things when your avi is a cropped pic of Emi doing anal? (though, to be fair, I guess one would have to already KNOW what that picture was of for them to be offended by it).

TheKasp:

zombieshark6666:
I think it's sad that the zeroes will probably be deleted even though people have a right to be angry about not being able to play a single-player game offline. They warned about this before release! I don't care, people should be able to use whatever they purchased.

This does not justify a zero score. Especially since it is NOT news. Especially since D3 is obviously NOT an offline game.

but this game will sell billions, and that'll make publishers use allways on-line, because it seems like it works
metacritic won't change it much, but atleast the majority of the voters say in the comments that they gave 0 because of the DRM, which is good, we should try to fight against it as much as possible

TheKasp:

zombieshark6666:
I think it's sad that the zeroes will probably be deleted even though people have a right to be angry about not being able to play a single-player game offline. They warned about this before release! I don't care, people should be able to use whatever they purchased.

This does not justify a zero score. Especially since it is NOT news. Especially since D3 is obviously NOT an offline game.

but this game will sell billions, and that'll make publishers use allways on-line, because it seems like it works
metacritic won't change it much, but atleast the majority of the voters say in the comments that they gave 0 because of the DRM, which is good, we should try to fight against it as much as possible

hyker:
snip

Paying for the game and then complaining about stuff that was known AGES before release is just stupid.

You want to fight games with such DRM? Don't buy them. That's what I do. Getting out with the excuse "it will sell billions" is just the phrase hypocrits use. Hypocrits like probably the majority of the people who gave it a zero score.

I just want to make clear: It was a worldwide launch of a online title made by Blizzard. The people who thought that they could play it without problems during the first week have been hiding under rocks during all the game launches by Blizzard since WoW.

IamLEAM1983:

Rooster Cogburn:
The real money auction house affects game balance, your power relative to other players, and your ability to beat content relative to other players you interact with. It impacts the all-important sense of fair play, the satisfaction of challenge and accomplishment, and the concept of the auction house itself. It arguably guts the whole point of playing the game past the credits. There are also other design decisions which may or may not favor funneling people into the auction house over fun and convenience.

Now if none of that matters to you in a multiplayer title, that's fair enough. But I think you can see the issue doesn't disappear when you put your head in the sand. Not that you are doing that. You said it doesn't bother you and I have no reason to doubt it. But it bothers me.

Now please indulge me by letting me vent a little bit: I can't fucking believe I have to defend the concept of playing a game without fucking money involved. Can you see why I feel like the fucking last sane person on earth? Whew, I feel better. Sorry.

Fair enough, but I'm curious to hear why you're bothered by other people having more proficient gear. See, D3 bases everything offensive on the value of your equipped weapon. You're playing as a Witch Doctor? Then find the cudgel or the hand axe with the biggest stats you can early on in the game, and you'll basically clean house. The Offense and Defense stats are virtually the only ones that matter. Everything else - even the uniques' sometimes fairly jaw-dropping stats - feels secondary in nature.

Considering that, wouldn't your personal spoils be enough? The game is never unfair as to leave you with improper weapons in a particularly hard stretch. Seeing as every build Blizz has planned for (if you don't use Elective Mode) is designed to be functional, even entry level spells like the Zombie Dogs are going to be relevant sixty levels down the line.

So when the only things that really matter are how much you can hit and how much damage you can soak, obsessing over some overpriced item in the RMAH just feels a little idiotic to me.

In a sense, D3 is only going to be Pay-to-Win if you put it in your mind that you *have* to be the alpha dog on the team, the one doing the most damage. It doesn't help that the inventory screen shows you your character's DPS - further accentuating the WoW-ish dispositions they'd like their players to take.

Just focus on upping these two base values. Your own item drops will suffice. If, on the other hand, you're trying to build some guy for PVP (which I have no idea if it is even possible in D3), then you might be in for a little more finagling.

The antidote for this is obvious: play with friends. Everyone has their own drops, but all items you discard from your inventory are visible to all. If your friends are the least bit thoughtful, they might run into something that'll work well for your class or your build.

I did not even list "other people having more proficient gear [than me]" as a complaint. I promise that is not the reason I don't like the RMAH. I'm bothered by the Real Money Auction House for all the reasons I listed. It's not that I'm bothered by people having more proficient gear. And it's not that I'm worried about being unable to tackle the game's content. Well, all that is part of it I suppose, but my issue is more fundamental. The ability to bypass the challenge of obtaining that gear by paying money and the fact of other people doing so deflates the motivation for and satisfaction from obtaining it in- and this is crucial- in a multiplayer environment. It also introduces the real-world concept of money into a video game, and not with subtlety or even the most contrived attempt at a gameplay justification. It's not that I can't get by with my personal spoils, it's that all the fun and motivation of doing so is gone. Well, not all of it. But it's a pretty big blow. I totally, utterly, and fundamentally disagree with the idea that what other people are doing in a multiplayer game does not affect your gaming experience. Your interactions with other players are what defines the experience. And it should be fun, challenging, and emotionally rewarding. Everything I listed in my first post contributes to that experience. You said to just ignore it, and all I'm trying to do is explain why that is a very unsatisfying solution for some of us.

The random drops do bother some people, and I don't much care one way or the other about that. But they differ from real money purchases in that random drops apply to everyone equally. You are still playing the game to get them and the process of obtaining the random drops is not being bypassed with money.

If I played exclusively with friends, that would indeed solve the problem. But my friends don't play this type of game, and even if they did I would probably want to play with randoms as well. I don't agree that pay-to-win is a state of mind. I don't agree that a game being pay-to-win is contingent on a person's attitude. Pay-to-win is paying money for a significant in-game advantage or to bypass content, and that's what the RMAH is. I get what you're saying, it won't bother you if you have the right mindset. But I don't share that mindset and I don't particularly want to.

My understanding is PvP is not currently available, but will be added later with a patch.

Aeshi:

Rooster Cogburn:
But doesn't "leave those alone" just mean "don't criticize Blizzard?" I mean, are you being harassed or something?

Harassed? Have you seen half the Diablo III threads on this forum? seems like every 3rd post is either a spambot impressionist going on about how good some similar indie game is or "LOL ERROR 37 ENJOY YOUR GAME SHEEP."

Well of course I want the game how I want it. And I'm going to say so. That's what we do. We talk about stuff.

This'd hold more merit if half the complaints weren't just "We want Diablo III to be Diablo II again!"

No offense, but it sounds like the only difference between the two is whether or not they criticize Blizzard.

The difference is one acknowledges that other people can still enjoy the game while the other basically goes "Well I'm not going to have fun playing this, so I don't want anyone else to enjoy it either."

Now please indulge me by letting me vent a little bit: I can't fucking believe I have to defend the concept of playing a game without fucking money involved. Can you see why I feel like the fucking last sane person on earth? Whew, I feel better. Sorry.

If you don't like the Auction House then don't use it, and if you're so adhered to the concept of "I got this gear by winning glorified dice rolls" being somehow better than "I got this gear by buying it" that you refuse to play with anyone who does the latter then just roll a Hardcore, they can't access the RMAH and have their own separate servers.

Yes, I have seen insulting posts and that is cause for complaint. It was not clear to me from your first post what you were objecting to exactly, but now it makes sense.

You may not agree with people who want Diablo III to be Diablo II again, but I wouldn't say they shouldn't express it on a forum if that is how they feel. Not that I want that. Besides, many of the complaints that are characterized that way could also be characterized as wanting Diablo III to be good. And I'm not saying it isn't.

I don't think not wanting you to enjoy something (a pretty natural and self-serving response if you think the 'something' blows chunks) is an offense worth mentioning. If they are insulting you, I agree that is worth griping about.

I did express why the RMAH problem is not solved if I simply don't buy things from it. Have you heard even one person complain about the RMAH on the basis that they personally would buy things from it? All that would solve are my money problems. Collecting loot is a huge draw for this game, which is why there is an auction house to begin with. You are reducing that appeal to "glorified dice rolls" to defend the RMAH. You are denigrating the game to make it sound as shitty as a real money auction house. Why defend something when you make it sound so shitty? You don't really feel that way, do you? Well, to answer your statement, I don't think collecting loot is as shitty as you imply, and definitely not as shitty as the RMAH.

And playing hardcore is only a good solution if I happen to want to play hardcore, and I don't. It can be exciting but too often it is boring or frustrating.

axlryder:
A vast portion of other reviews where basically people whining that this wasn't Diablo II. Again, fine, but hardly a good enough reason to give the game a 0

Attempting to attach an objective score to a subjective argument is flawed and irrational to begin with.
By extension, arguing over its validity is an even more irrational and meaningless endeavor.

This is a FORUM designed for colloquial chatter and many people on this website are already familiar with the communities' good and bad points.

Sadly, regardless of how it was designed, it's slowly turned into the usual bitchfest soapbox I find on most gaming sites. Meaningful discussion is stomped out or hand-waved away, and threads like THIS take center stage.

I call it "Controversy-Trolling". Where one topic gets spun over and over again.
Before, it was Used Game Sales, DRM, Piracy, Bobby Kotick acting like a heartless businessman in public. (SOPA was a legitimate threat to the net and demanded immediate action. I didn't like seeing SOPA threads everywhere, but I recognized their value at least)

Recently, it was Mass Effect 3, and now it's Diablo 3.

(It's either that, or game hype, which also isn't discussion.)