Revenge of the Metacritics: Diablo III Getting Review-Bombed

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Atmos Duality:

Spearmaster:

I might go on metacritic and give every Xbox 360 game a 0 because I don't own a 360 and refuse to get one and thus cant play the games which means they are broken somehow...JK

Most modern proprietary systems offer little added value to the customer compared to where they can get elsewhere for free, unless the system essentially has a monopoly in practice (oh hai Adobe).

Which near the heart of the controversy for Diablo 3.
Bnet 2.0 offers ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can't get elsewhere, so there's no logical reason (beyond paranoia and greed) to force everyone onto their system to begin with.

There's no practical, objective reason (from the customer's perspective) to do that. None.
But that's what happened, and that's why this stupid topic even exists to begin with.

"Force everyone onto their system"...wow really? They are putting a gun to peoples heads and "Forcing" them to buy diablo 3? Seriously though if you cant live with it don't buy it, use your wallet to send a message and boycott the game if its that big of a deal.

Always online DRM is the future of gaming im afraid, at least Blizzard used it to also add features like a full server auction house and fast easy grouping with friends.

Spearmaster:
1
"Force everyone onto their system"...wow really? They are putting a gun to peoples heads and "Forcing" them to buy diablo 3? Seriously though if you cant live with it don't buy it, use your wallet to send a message and boycott the game if its that big of a deal.

That has to be one of the more ridiculous interpretations of the post you quoted...

Rooster Cogburn:
-snip-

Ok I am going to address your concerns about the RMAH mainly. There is a lot of different subject going on here, but I am mainly focusing on this.

The RMAH will not change your exp unless you use it.

You argue that you still have to deal with the people who use it, but there is a flaw in that. The RMAH doesn't add items to the game only exchanges them between players.

It should have the same effect on your game as the regular AH or me giving items to my friends. It is still the same items in rotation.
That guy B bought all his stuff doesn't change that you might as well have dealt with guy A who sold it to him. You are no more at a disadvantage than you were before.

Soopy:

Spearmaster:
1
"Force everyone onto their system"...wow really? They are putting a gun to peoples heads and "Forcing" them to buy diablo 3? Seriously though if you cant live with it don't buy it, use your wallet to send a message and boycott the game if its that big of a deal.

That has to be one of the more ridiculous interpretations of the post you quoted...

Yet he is right. I have seen people saying Blizzard has a monopoly and then forcing people to use their Battle.net. The whole "force" is so utterly ridicules. There is no force involved. To say it is hyperbole. I would be like me saying "and then they forced me to pay for it just because I wanted to play it". They have a product/service combination here. Walk away if you dont like it. Simple as that.

Soopy:

Spearmaster:
1
"Force everyone onto their system"...wow really? They are putting a gun to peoples heads and "Forcing" them to buy diablo 3? Seriously though if you cant live with it don't buy it, use your wallet to send a message and boycott the game if its that big of a deal.

That has to be one of the more ridiculous interpretations of the post you quoted...

yes apparently they did not see the JK at the end of the post they initially quoted.

Draech:

Soopy:

Spearmaster:
1
"Force everyone onto their system"...wow really? They are putting a gun to peoples heads and "Forcing" them to buy diablo 3? Seriously though if you cant live with it don't buy it, use your wallet to send a message and boycott the game if its that big of a deal.

That has to be one of the more ridiculous interpretations of the post you quoted...

Yet he is right. I have seen people saying Blizzard has a monopoly and then forcing people to use their Battle.net. The whole "force" is so utterly ridicules. There is no force involved. To say it is hyperbole. I would be like me saying "and then they forced me to pay for it just because I wanted to play it". They have a product/service combination here. Walk away if you dont like it. Simple as that.

Yes, but in the same sense people who purchase the game are being forced to use a service that doesn't actually benefit them in anyway.

We've had a long time to grow accustomed to games as they were (Single player being accessible offline and the like.), Now suddenly they're not.

It's understandable that people aren't going to like it.

I agree though, I haven't purchased Diablo 3 for this reason (well that and it sucks IMO), instead I supported an indie developer in Runic by pre-ordering Torchlight 2, which IMO is a better game. It does everything I want from a game of this genre.

Soopy:

Draech:

Soopy:

That has to be one of the more ridiculous interpretations of the post you quoted...

Yet he is right. I have seen people saying Blizzard has a monopoly and then forcing people to use their Battle.net. The whole "force" is so utterly ridicules. There is no force involved. To say it is hyperbole. I would be like me saying "and then they forced me to pay for it just because I wanted to play it". They have a product/service combination here. Walk away if you dont like it. Simple as that.

Yes, but in the same sense people who purchase the game are being forced to use a service that doesn't actually benefit them in anyway.

We've had a long time to grow accustomed to games as they were (Single player being accessible offline and the like.), Now suddenly they're not.

It's understandable that people aren't going to like it.

I agree though, I haven't purchased Diablo 3 for this reason (well that and it sucks IMO), instead I supported an indie developer in Runic by pre-ordering Torchlight 2, which IMO is a better game. It does everything I want from a game of this genre.

Well it does actually benefit them in a sense.

Let me give you the run down.
Battle.net is as large a part of the Diablo exp as everyone holds single player out to be. Maybe even more. Diablo can be played single player without a doubt, but much like Torchlight 1 single player alone doesn't really make a game last.
The Battle.net is necessarily needed to be very secure. The reason WC and SC can hold up a competitive scene is that large parts of it is controlled. The same thing goes for WoW (not PvP, but progression) and now Diablo. There has to be oversight. There has to be control. When a single person can topple the whole thing you need a sterile environment to handle this. This is also the the real reason the RMAH exists.
How many people do you think Blizzard has restored accounts for in WoW because they went to websites buying gold and got their accounts stolen?
How many you think would have to be added to that if people still used the grey marked?

Blizzard sacrificed offline play and the notion of buying items being wrong, in order to protect their online play. The play they believe is what most people bought the game for.

That awkward moment when game pirates hawking cracked versions of the game offer a better and more stable service than a multi-billion dollar company.

I'm honestly not surprised at the score though, this is quite literally one of Blizzards most disastrous launches yet. Most of their WoW title releases have had issues, some of them pretty major like the BC fiasco, but never to this degree, a zero score for a game people paid full price for with the expectation that they would be able to play it on release day, which is a perfectly valid expectation I would think, is the best that a developer could hope for.

Blizzard new exactly what they were getting into and they should've done more thorough stress testing on their servers to find any problems. This is definitely going to bite them in the gibblies for the next few weeks at least.

LiquidGrape:
Question: does this finally prove that gaming culture has a certain measure of entitlement issues, or is it merely the righteous indignation of customers and fans scorned?

Don't have the game, but a hypothetical. Say you rent a car and the company puts a device connected to the engine to cut you off if you should try to steal it. Then you drive the car for 30 minutes and the device malfunctions and shuts off your engine for no reason. Question - how do you feel about this car company's service now? If there was a place for you to review this car company (who is one of the few using this ridiculous measure that is known to malfunction), would you give them a positive review for defending their cars?

Now add the fact that you're not renting a game, you're buying it. You're paying the full price for it, it's yours and you don't need any online services to play it (this is a singleplayer, all the multiplayer components of it are about as essential as store pets to WoW). So this device that's there doesn't serve any actual purpose, no one's gonna steal a game that's been bought, it's an oxymoron, and the mild protection increase it gives doesn't deter those who would steal it in the slightest (I've seen scene groups withhold cracks out of respect for a company for longer than it took them to crack the hardest protections, let alone one that's been cracked before already).

Oh and just for kicks, lets add in the facts that previous DRMs have had this exact same problem time and again and Blizzard, who is capable of maintaining their MMO servers even during periods like expansion launches, was incompetent enough to let a very foreseeable problem that they know how to handle happen.

Personally, I wouldn't blame anyone for shitting all over a user review for the game that does that. That's what a user review is after all, a place for a user to say how they feel about the game, if they're pissed about something (and they've got good reason to be in this case), a user review's the place to talk about it. After all, if a game had issues like that, I'd be as curious about that as any amount of "it's super cinematic" by your neighbourhood IGN.

Draech:

Rooster Cogburn:
-snip-

Ok I am going to address your concerns about the RMAH mainly. There is a lot of different subject going on here, but I am mainly focusing on this.

The RMAH will not change your exp unless you use it.

You argue that you still have to deal with the people who use it, but there is a flaw in that. The RMAH doesn't add items to the game only exchanges them between players.

It should have the same effect on your game as the regular AH or me giving items to my friends. It is still the same items in rotation.
That guy B bought all his stuff doesn't change that you might as well have dealt with guy A who sold it to him. You are no more at a disadvantage than you were before.

The real money auction house will change everyone's experience regardless of whether they personally buy things from it. I have explained why several times now. It has to do with things like a sense of fair play, the satisfaction of and motivation for challenges and achievements, and the concept of an in-game economy. In a multiplayer game, your interaction with other players shapes your experience. Almost everything they are doing affects you in some way, especially when it comes to something as world-changing as dealing in real money.

It doesn't matter if items are being spawned into the game or found and then marketed by players. This distinction is completely arbitrary. It was contrived specifically to bend the definition of pay-to-win to somehow exclude the RMAH, but it's totally empty. No one ever defended Chinese gold farmers and their customers on this basis because it's a meaningless detail. Pay-to-win is paying money for a significant in-game advantage or to bypass content. Not everyone likes pay-to-win and the day before Diablo III's RMAH house was revealed I would not even have had to explain why. It's self evident.

Finally, whether or not I will be personally disadvantaged is beside the point. Maybe I'm so rich I can spend all the money I want and I still just don't like it. Trading items in the context of the game is fun and adds to the overall experience. Person 'B' in your example is not trading with in-game currency but with money. No one earned that in the context of the game. It is not consistent with an economy based on items and currency found within the game.

Pay-to-win is no fun. It affects the overall experience of the game in major ways. I don't like and I don't want to support it. I hope many others share my opinion because I do not want to see crap like this become standard. Games are fun when they have a sense of fair play- when the rules are the same for everyone. They are lame when people are buying accomplishments with money.

Saying the RMAH won't affect me is the equivalent of saying that putting your finger in my face and yelling "nana-nana boo-boo, I'm not touching you" won't affect me. It may true in some meaningless sense but it's small consolation.

Rooster Cogburn:

Draech:

Rooster Cogburn:
-snip-

Ok I am going to address your concerns about the RMAH mainly. There is a lot of different subject going on here, but I am mainly focusing on this.

The RMAH will not change your exp unless you use it.

You argue that you still have to deal with the people who use it, but there is a flaw in that. The RMAH doesn't add items to the game only exchanges them between players.

It should have the same effect on your game as the regular AH or me giving items to my friends. It is still the same items in rotation.
That guy B bought all his stuff doesn't change that you might as well have dealt with guy A who sold it to him. You are no more at a disadvantage than you were before.

The real money auction house will change everyone's experience regardless of whether they personally buy things from it. I have explained why several times now. It has to do with things like a sense of fair play, the satisfaction of and motivation for challenges and achievements, and the concept of an in-game economy. In a multiplayer game, your interaction with other players shapes your experience. Almost everything they are doing affects you in some way, especially when it comes to something as world-changing as dealing in real money.

It doesn't matter if items are being spawned into the game or found and then marketed by players. This distinction is completely arbitrary. It was contrived specifically to bend the definition of pay-to-win to somehow exclude the RMAH, but it's totally empty. No one ever defended Chinese gold farmers and their customers on this basis because it's a meaningless detail. Pay-to-win is paying money for a significant in-game advantage or to bypass content. Not everyone likes pay-to-win and the day before Diablo III's RMAH house was revealed I would not even have had to explain why. It's self evident.

Finally, whether or not I will be personally disadvantaged is beside the point. Maybe I'm so rich I can spend all the money I want and I still just don't like it. Trading items in the context of the game is fun and adds to the overall experience. Person 'B' in your example is not trading with in-game currency but with money. No one earned that in the context of the game. It is not consistent with an economy based on items and currency found within the game.

Pay-to-win is no fun. It affects the overall experience of the game in major ways. I don't like and I don't want to support it. I hope many others share my opinion because I do not want to see crap like this become standard. Games are fun when they have a sense of fair play- when the rules are the same for everyone. They are lame when people are buying accomplishments with money.

Saying the RMAH won't affect me is the equivalent of saying that putting your finger in my face and yelling "nana-nana boo-boo, I'm not touching you" won't affect me. It may true in some meaningless sense but it's small consolation.

You are still extending your sphere of play over others.
It goes against what you think is fair, but here is the kicker. it is still not a competition with anyone else than yourself. Your sphere of play goes no further than what you play with.

It is the argumentation of a person who wants his set of values applied universally.

No it wont affect your game. And you are going to have to live with that. Just like my vegetarian cousin will have to live with me eating meat. It doesn't affect her. Not her sphere of influence.

And btw I never blamed the Chinese gold farmers or their customers. I never understood them, but they didn't influence the game in a way I couldn't myself.

Spearmaster:

"Force everyone onto their system"...wow really? They are putting a gun to peoples heads and "Forcing" them to buy diablo 3? Seriously though if you cant live with it don't buy it, use your wallet to send a message and boycott the game if its that big of a deal.

*sigh*
Could you really not make a counter-argument without trying to change the context of what I said?

If you honestly need clarity, I'm saying that if you do play Diablo 3, you have no choice but to play the game on their servers. Compare to Diablo 2, where you could play on their servers, or offline or via LAN.

Always online DRM is the future of gaming im afraid

I'm not so sure about that. For blockbuster games that are sure to sell, yes, that could work. Blizzard has the quality and the credibility to pull it off.

But everyone else? Probably not.

It's cost-prohibitively expensive to do that for every game that goes to market, and the potential for loss is staggering just due to the required investment in servers and bandwidth alone.

If a game bombs, you just wasted a large amount of capital installing servers that are being used for nothing.

...at least Blizzard used it to also add features like a full server auction house and fast easy grouping with friends.

Honey to help swallow a bitter pill.

Spearmaster:

yes apparently they did not see the JK at the end of the post they initially quoted.

I did. I disregarded it because I had a point to make; perhaps not just directly to you either.

If your car doesnt work and you cant drive it.It is not a car it is just a pile of metal and plastic you have a right to complain that you do not have a car.

If a game is unplayable and you cant not play it then it is just a metal disc and a plastic box.So like the car you have the right to complain that you do not have a game.

The zeros are for once reasonable as if the game is unplayable it is a terrible game.What is the world coming too if i have to spell this out to some people

Draech:

You are still extending your sphere of play over others.
It goes against what you think is fair, but here is the kicker. it is still not a competition with anyone else than yourself. Your sphere of play goes no further than what you play with.

It is the argumentation of a person who wants his set of values applied universally.

No it wont affect your game. And you are going to have to live with that. Just like my vegetarian cousin will have to live with me eating meat. It doesn't affect her. Not her sphere of influence.

And btw I never blamed the Chinese gold farmers or their customers. I never understood them, but they didn't influence the game in a way I couldn't myself.

Any opinion I have about what any game should be like is extending some value onto others. Wanting the game to be a certain way doesn't make me a tyrant.

You are trying to twist Diablo III's multiplayer component into a singleplayer experience to explain why things other people do have no impact on me. It's not a competition (except in PvP, of course) but it is a cooperative multiplayer game. What other people do will effect my game and yours and you are going to have to live with that. Using your cousin as an example begs the question. Your vegetarian cousin has nothing to do with Diablo III and it is only relevant if I assume you are correct. Somebody beat me up once but I don't present that as evidence that the RMAH will effect my experience.

You say you never understood Chinese gold farmers. But now you're defending Blizzard's RMAH. What is the difference from the players' perspective?

Atmos Duality:

Spearmaster:

"Force everyone onto their system"...wow really? They are putting a gun to peoples heads and "Forcing" them to buy diablo 3? Seriously though if you cant live with it don't buy it, use your wallet to send a message and boycott the game if its that big of a deal.

*sigh*
Could you really not make a counter-argument without trying to change the context of what I said?

If you honestly need clarity, I'm saying that if you do play Diablo 3, you have no choice but to play the game on their servers. Compare to Diablo 2, where you could play on their servers, or offline or via LAN.

Always online DRM is the future of gaming im afraid

I'm not so sure about that. For blockbuster games that are sure to sell, yes, that could work. Blizzard has the quality and the credibility to pull it off.

But everyone else? Probably not.

It's cost-prohibitively expensive to do that for every game that goes to market, and the potential for loss is staggering just due to the required investment in servers and bandwidth alone.

If a game bombs, you just wasted a large amount of capital installing servers that are being used for nothing.

...at least Blizzard used it to also add features like a full server auction house and fast easy grouping with friends.

Honey to help swallow a bitter pill.

Spearmaster:

yes apparently they did not see the JK at the end of the post they initially quoted.

I did. I disregarded it because I had a point to make; perhaps not just directly to you either.

Fair enough but the only 2 points I'm trying to make are

"if you do play Diablo 3, you have no choice but to play the game on their servers"

I'm just focusing on that that first "if", buying the game means that you accepted what it was and like it or not, its an always online game. If you don't accept that don't buy it.

Second thing is that just because it can be a bad move doesn't mean game entities aren't gonna keep trying to implement similar methods of DRM, piracy is a problem in the PC games market. These are steps against pirates, hackers and the like. At least they aren't charging a monthly sub and calling it a MORPG, then it would be greedy.

IMO giving a game full time online servers with multiple beneficial features and asking no extra fee in return other than the option to maybe use the RMAH doesn't sound like a greedy practice to me, it sounds like an evolution of online and single player gaming combined.

D3 is a ton of fun, i absolutely LOVE IT! They took D2, improved it and continued on with the storyline. I remember the pain of not having a net connection 24 - 7 (i.e. dial-up) and now to have to consider that i have to wait till late night to play a game would ruin even this game. Yes there are server issues, but there have been server issues with a lot of other games as well ESPECIALLY when a game first launches. Wanting to be the first person to spout-off about a game's problem is just childish. I'm not saying that the server issue isn't an issue, but it should have been expected by both player and publisher. Blizzard is fixing the issue, players have the right to be mad, but it's not something that could have been completely avoided. The obvious answer would have been have more servers than necessary then cut back on servers till you found the "right" amount. BUT that costs money and the more of it a publisher can save they will. I'm certainly not happy that the game had a lot of lag when i was playing yesterday, but knowing that Blizzard was working on the problem had me accept it because it is that good of a game. It will get better and, for me, that's enough. Not having an offline option sucks, but if Blizzard had warned people before they could pre-order it and those people didn't look into it, then its not a problem that should be screamed about.

As for needing to be online simply to play the game alone is stupid, but unfortunately is the answer Blizzard came up with to, hopefully, protect their 1s and 0s. Another case where a other people's actions have spoiled something we took for granted.

Squickster:
As for needing to be online simply to play the game alone is stupid, but unfortunately is the answer Blizzard came up with to, hopefully, protect their 1s and 0s. Another case where a other people's actions have spoiled something we took for granted.

The primary reason for this form of DRM is to ensure that no one with Diablo III installed can cough on their keyboard without Blizzard's express written permission. The point is debatable but it seems obvious to me this is the common drive behind their DRM, auction house, modding policies and so forth in Starcraft II and Diablo III. The ability to control how people are using their game always takes precedence over the user experience. Protecting their product from piracy is only one part of that.

Squickster:

Another case where a other people's actions have spoiled something we took for granted.

QFT. I assume we are talking about blizz/activision/whoevers in charge decision to implement a paid item exchange system and the subsequent need to make it online?

Cos let's be honest folks, not many gave a f*** about cheaters in previous diablos last I heard ;)
Or was this really the main thing people asked for in a diablo 3? Must have missed that meeting.
So let's not pretend that's the number #1 reason they did it this way and the decision was motivated purely by goodwill and love for their playerbase.

why does no one complain about the "critic" reviews and how only one out of thirty really gives fair mention to the network issues, which are pretty fuckin huge, that page absolutely reeks of bias, i can't shake the feeling that the large majority of those reviews were paid for

We ARE entitled. If you pay $60 or more for a video game, then you ARE entitled to play it at your leisure. If the game has to have a constant connection to a remote server, then you ARE entitled to a remote server that has a constant connection to your computer.

Always-connected DRM is objectively, morally WRONG. All it does is allow the publisher to screw with its paying customers. There is nothing stopping Blizzard from pulling the plug on its servers and letting them gather dust. No amount of consumer outrage matters; they got your $60 or more, they got their millions from both retail and direct-download sales, so they can say, in a nice bold Exocet font, "Go fuck yourselves" and shut down their servers whenever they like.

It doesn't stop piracy; rather, it ENCOURAGES piracy. Why should I buy your crippled game that I can't play if your server isn't playing nice when I can download a cracked application that bypasses the server-check and play at my leisure? Is it supposed to stop item-hackers and -dupers from exploiting the auction house? It was YOUR idea to include an auction house; don't inconvenience ME to protect YOUR game economy.

Did.. did I sound like Jim Sterling there? Really? Well, thank God for me, then.

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.

It does if the game is defective.

If a person installs on their PC, or puts a game into a console, and they are unable to play it and their PC/console is in working order; then the game is defective!

This isn't a bunch of whiners zero bombing a game because of hats. This is people letting everyone know that releasing a game that is defective and unplayable is not acceptable.

"Blizzard said they were going to do this since they announced it."

So, Blizzard flat out said that they were going to make a defective game? And people just went along with it!?

I'm thinking about taking bets on when the second Video Game Crash is going to occur.

It was defective for a few days, most MMOs have that at launch too (and at semi-regular intervals afterward to boot) and nobody ever seems to review-bomb them because of it.

Metacritic is a place where you can go to get a review unfettered by the fear of pissing off a publisher.

Personally I hate "scoring" reviews, because the scale is completely arbitrary. If you must rely on a number then there should only be a 1 and a 10 because anything in between is obvious bullshit.

There is obviously a cutoff of what you're willing to play and what you aren't. And if you feel a game is worthy of being played, does it matter if it was only an 8.5/10 or a 9/10. No it was just worth playing.

And conversely if a game isn't fun are you going to differentiate between a 4/10 and a 5.5/10 or a 2/10 it all reeks of bullshit to me.

It should be the job of the reviewer to express a clear enough opinion of what (s)he likes, and it's the job of the reader to be able to interpret that opinion and apply it to their own sense of taste.

There's no such thing as an objective review, there is no way to "review a game on it's own merits" because every merit you can review a game on has subjective weight to anyone who might play a game. There is no "baseline" for taste.

So all this tells you is that general consensus of a games quality is low.
Read reviews.
Find a critic who's sense of taste is close to yours.
give their opinions more validity to influence your purchasing decisions.

it's not that complicated.

Spearmaster:

Fair enough but the only 2 points I'm trying to make are

"if you do play Diablo 3, you have no choice but to play the game on their servers"

I'm just focusing on that that first "if", buying the game means that you accepted what it was and like it or not, its an always online game. If you don't accept that don't buy it.

I'm a big, overt supporter of fair business and "voting with your wallet".

And I already do that already with companies I cannot trust, or feasibly cannot do business with. My internet connection regularly drops Bnet 2.0 with Starcraft 2; why the hell would I bother trying to play an entire game that requires a constant connection to it?

Second thing is that just because it can be a bad move doesn't mean game entities aren't gonna keep trying to implement similar methods of DRM, piracy is a problem in the PC games market. These are steps against pirates, hackers and the like. At least they aren't charging a monthly sub and calling it a MORPG, then it would be greedy.

Oh they will make their attempts for sure, and eventually, something will bomb on them, and it will spook their backers/investors. They will realize that maybe, JUST MAYBE the cost of absolute control isn't worth the added risk.

It's not like piracy has killed these companies outright; if piracy was actually costing them money they would have all gone out of business years ago, DRM or not. But the polar opposite has happened; the gaming industry has flourished and grown into a media force that rivals freaking HOLLYWOOD.

All the while, the "solution" is becoming more costly than the problem....and they expect their legitimate customers to foot the entire bill for it; both in terms of money, and rights.

IMO giving a game full time online servers with multiple beneficial features and asking no extra fee in return other than the option to maybe use the RMAH doesn't sound like a greedy practice to me, it sounds like an evolution of online and single player gaming combined.

IMO, it acts like a "gateway drug"; it's something to try to ease people into accepting this bullshit DRM as business standard. I remember when Oblivion launched and people discovered the Horse Armor DLC was on the disc. It raised such a huge stink that Bethesda vowed to be more forthcoming about their DLC offerings.

Today, on-disc DLC is just part-and-parcel of the business. Sure, SOME people make a fuss, but it was nowhere near the same level of rejection as it was then. (Today, we even have apologists who will blindly throw the word "entitled" at anyone for just criticizing DLC; not just for demanding or laying claim to it.)

You may see this as "evolution", but I see the subtraction of practicality and the introduction of a needless, major point of failure as back-peddling (especially for consumers).

Mikeyfell:
Metacritic is a place where you can go to get a review unfettered by the fear of pissing off a publisher.

Personally I hate "scoring" reviews, because the scale is completely arbitrary. If you must rely on a number then there should only be a 1 and a 10 because anything in between is obvious bullshit.

There is obviously a cutoff of what you're willing to play and what you aren't. And if you feel a game is worthy of being played, does it matter if it was only an 8.5/10 or a 9/10. No it was just worth playing.

And conversely if a game isn't fun are you going to differentiate between a 4/10 and a 5.5/10 or a 2/10 it all reeks of bullshit to me.

It should be the job of the reviewer to express a clear enough opinion of what (s)he likes, and it's the job of the reader to be able to interpret that opinion and apply it to their own sense of taste.

There's no such thing as an objective review, there is no way to "review a game on it's own merits" because every merit you can review a game on has subjective weight to anyone who might play a game. There is no "baseline" for taste.

So all this tells you is that general consensus of a games quality is low.
Read reviews.
Find a critic who's sense of taste is close to yours.
give their opinions more validity to influence your purchasing decisions.

it's not that complicated.

I think you're on the right track with your idea, except that there is definitely a middle ground between awesome and unworthy of being played. A rating that would signify "yeah, it's alright, but not worth the money or not particularly awesome."

I agree otherwise though. IGN and Metacritic are useless for figuring out if a game is good or worth the money.

I think its because the diablo 3 style of gameplay is non standard. BLizz gave away over a million free diablo 3 games to its annual pass subscribers. Many of these pass people may not be into the dungeon crawler type of game. Ive heard many call it wow lite. These people would not have bought diablo 3, but got it from the pass deal and may now be part of the review bombing spree

chadachada123:

Mikeyfell:
Metacritic is a place where you can go to get a review unfettered by the fear of pissing off a publisher.

Personally I hate "scoring" reviews, because the scale is completely arbitrary. If you must rely on a number then there should only be a 1 and a 10 because anything in between is obvious bullshit.

There is obviously a cutoff of what you're willing to play and what you aren't. And if you feel a game is worthy of being played, does it matter if it was only an 8.5/10 or a 9/10. No it was just worth playing.

And conversely if a game isn't fun are you going to differentiate between a 4/10 and a 5.5/10 or a 2/10 it all reeks of bullshit to me.

It should be the job of the reviewer to express a clear enough opinion of what (s)he likes, and it's the job of the reader to be able to interpret that opinion and apply it to their own sense of taste.

There's no such thing as an objective review, there is no way to "review a game on it's own merits" because every merit you can review a game on has subjective weight to anyone who might play a game. There is no "baseline" for taste.

So all this tells you is that general consensus of a games quality is low.
Read reviews.
Find a critic who's sense of taste is close to yours.
give their opinions more validity to influence your purchasing decisions.

it's not that complicated.

I think you're on the right track with your idea, except that there is definitely a middle ground between awesome and unworthy of being played. A rating that would signify "yeah, it's alright, but not worth the money or not particularly awesome."

I agree otherwise though. IGN and Metacritic are useless for figuring out if a game is good or worth the money.

There isn't that much of a middle ground between "worth playing" and "not worth playing" I guess a "Not for everyone" but that's always implied.

With a "Play it" and a "Don't play it" as the only two options, there would be a paradigm shift in how reviews work. To the point where it would make sites with multiple reviewers somewhat obsolete.

I just get sick of so called objective reviews that boils down to a bunch of stuff you can find out by watching the trailer reading the back of the box. For example: after reading the Escapist review of Diablo 3 still have no idea whether or not I want to play it.

Basically what I'm saying is that everyone should review games the way Yahtzee does.

Mostly it comes down to the fact that if your game doesnt work for some stupid reason your more likely to log onto the net and vent your angst in comparison with the people who the games working fine for and would give the game a nice review if they were asked but hey they're busy enjoying diablo.

EcksTeaSea:

It's having hacking issues, had a downtime for several hours on sunday afternoon on the EU servers and still has latency issues. I'd hardly call that working perfectly or even acceptable.

lapan:

EcksTeaSea:

It's having hacking issues, had a downtime for several hours on sunday afternoon on the EU servers and still has latency issues. I'd hardly call that working perfectly or even acceptable.

Hacking issues I have noticed and have yet to encounter anything and every game has them. No game is free from hacks while I agree it blows. I play on NA so I have no idea about downtime, but I have had no issues since the first night of launch.

EcksTeaSea:

lapan:

EcksTeaSea:

It's having hacking issues, had a downtime for several hours on sunday afternoon on the EU servers and still has latency issues. I'd hardly call that working perfectly or even acceptable.

Hacking issues I have noticed and have yet to encounter anything and every game has them. No game is free from hacks while I agree it blows. I play on NA so I have no idea about downtime, but I have had no issues since the first night of launch.

The you are very lucky. An american friend of mine actually has a worse latency on the US servers than on EU.

IamLEAM1983:

Rooster Cogburn:
I'm saying the RMAH ruins the fun of collecting loot and you're saying collecting loot is not fun anyway.

So... The presence of a single button labeled "Auction House" in the main menu's interface is enough to totally destroy your experience?

If that's how you feel, then alright, but forgive me for saying that you're reacting a little harshly. I don't agree with the auction system, real money or otherwise - but that doesn't stop me from having fun.

See, the sixty bucks got you two separate entities: the game itself, and the auction house. It's up to you to decide if you'd rather ignore one of these entities or not. Just going "Oh, phooey, other people are going to buy their way to success and that ruins it for me!" equals forgetting the fact that this is YOUR copy of the game.

Hate the RMAH? Don't use it. Hate the auction house? Don't use it. Blizzard isn't about to put a little icon on top of other players alerting you to the presence of auction users in your public game, and the idea of kicking people who chickened out and bought their way to success is pretty excessive. This would be as cheap as back when Team Fortress 2 went free-to-play and idiots started using special kick commands to keep F2P players away from certain servers. Shit, some particularly inconsiderate morons even slapped a hovering title on top of F2P-ers.

You'll never be able to tell the "Pay to Win" types apart from the "Play" types. It's seriously best to just accept it and have fun with what you have.

You are assuming that these the AH and the game are seperate entities, but they are not. Ignoring the AH would be like ignoring health packs, or the skills system. Sure you could ignore them if you wanted, but you would not be playing the game as intended. It all comes from the way that loot is generated. The randomness of items is too great for a player to ever really get what they want, so the focus has changed from "what can this item do for me" to "what can this item do for another". That's where a huge chunk of the multiplayer value comes from. Grinding for items has become grinding for gold and aiding one another via the AH. That's the intention and it's why Blizzard are taking a cut from the RMAH. You are essentially paying as you play in a single player game. I find that more dispicable than the always online personally.

Djinn8:

IamLEAM1983:

Rooster Cogburn:
I'm saying the RMAH ruins the fun of collecting loot and you're saying collecting loot is not fun anyway.

So... The presence of a single button labeled "Auction House" in the main menu's interface is enough to totally destroy your experience?

If that's how you feel, then alright, but forgive me for saying that you're reacting a little harshly. I don't agree with the auction system, real money or otherwise - but that doesn't stop me from having fun.

See, the sixty bucks got you two separate entities: the game itself, and the auction house. It's up to you to decide if you'd rather ignore one of these entities or not. Just going "Oh, phooey, other people are going to buy their way to success and that ruins it for me!" equals forgetting the fact that this is YOUR copy of the game.

Hate the RMAH? Don't use it. Hate the auction house? Don't use it. Blizzard isn't about to put a little icon on top of other players alerting you to the presence of auction users in your public game, and the idea of kicking people who chickened out and bought their way to success is pretty excessive. This would be as cheap as back when Team Fortress 2 went free-to-play and idiots started using special kick commands to keep F2P players away from certain servers. Shit, some particularly inconsiderate morons even slapped a hovering title on top of F2P-ers.

You'll never be able to tell the "Pay to Win" types apart from the "Play" types. It's seriously best to just accept it and have fun with what you have.

You are assuming that these the AH and the game are seperate entities, but they are not. Ignoring the AH would be like ignoring health packs, or the skills system. Sure you could ignore them if you wanted, but you would not be playing the game as intended. It all comes from the way that loot is generated. The randomness of items is too great for a player to ever really get what they want, so the focus has changed from "what can this item do for me" to "what can this item do for another". That's where a huge chunk of the multiplayer value comes from. Grinding for items has become grinding for gold and aiding one another via the AH. That's the intention and it's why Blizzard are taking a cut from the RMAH. You are essentially paying as you play in a single player game. I find that more dispicable than the always online personally.

Good points. It's not always easy to articulate why I hate the idea of the RMAH because I don't own the game, and it doesn't even exist yet. I know what will happen, but it's difficult to be specific, and anyone who does not agree will just dismiss it no matter how obvious it is. It really doesn't matter what the reality is, "don't use it" is a very convenient deflection, even if it doesn't make a lick of sense.

Because I already had both eyes on Blizzard's bullshit anyway, I found the exorbitant, outrageous price of this game more amusing. I just knew the DRM fuckery in Starcraft II did not bode well and surprise surprise, all the apologists were wrong. Oh well. This is what I said when I heard how much they were charging for this game:


I posted this in another thread, may as well post it here.

I also think they delayed the implementation of the RMAH to head off any possible backlash at game launch. It was pretty ingenious and pretty slimy of them. This game apparently isn't so complex that they can't fucking finish it before they release it.

Djinn8:
Snip

So, you're basically saying that all these years, I've been playing Diablo II wrong and should have bought some items on the black market; as that *obviously* is how you find items useful to your planned build.

Actually, no. I didn't. The game doesn't revolve around the auction house as you claim it does. I've had pubbers gift me a few useful items before and I've always thanked them, but I'm not so consumed by the idea of character or build efficiency that I simply MUST have such-and-such item, which would warrant my use of the auction house.

Like I've said before, the game's been considerably dumbed down. Some of the changes are useful, others are a tad annoying. One of the annoying changes involves the fact that each class has its dominant stat, but that these stats are pulled away from player control. In practice, this means that the only way I can improve my damage-dealing stat (Intelligence) as a Witch Doctor outside of leveling up, is to find Intelligence-improving items and weapons. That, along with DPS and armor rating, are your chief concerns as a D3 player.

Trust me, I've been able to do just that and to improve these items significantly without ever setting foot in the auction house. I haven't spent a single gold piece on an auction and I don't plan to, and nor do I plan to buy items with actual money.

Hell, I found a war hammer all by my lonesome that makes my DPS go from a measly two-digit range to a hundred and fifty-six!

So no, you definitely don't need the auction to "win" the game. You can kick Diablo's red ass without spending a single gold piece outside of the in-game vendors, and certainly without paying more than the sixty bucks the game cost you.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked