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
 

do you want to attack a game with this guy in it

image

I see no problem with the low ratings it's getting. If a company chooses to make an purely online game and the "online" part is non-functional for a large portion of users due to server-side problems, they have failed to deliver the product. 0/10 is a reasonable score for an unplayable game.

I myself didn't purchase the game and will not purchase the game because reliable high-speed internet is not available in my region.

Has there been a AAA title released in the past year or so that hasn't been review bombed?

Is pretty sad really.

Take a look at why they're being review bombed.

Mass Effect 3 had one of the worst endings imaginable for what was three games in the making, and was badly received we're getting free DLC to make it better.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 was... well, Call of Duty. It wasn't technically reviewed bombed - those low scores are entirely accurate.

Diablo 3 was rendered entirely unplayable for over half of it's pre-order and day one purchasers. And for those that could play it, they were treated to disconnects, character deletions, lag, random server resets and extended periods of maintenance. And half of the player base hasn't even fucking tried multiplayer yet.
This wasn't review bombed: a game that is simply unplayable gets a zero.

Defending Always On DRM and Pay2Win games isn't justifiable. Blizzard are raping you, and you're not only paying them for it, you're defending them for doing it.
Anyone who bought Diablo 3 get's what they deserve.

captcha: moot point. Touché, internet, touché.

Zeh Don:
Take a look at why they're being review bombed.

Mass Effect 3 had one of the worst endings imaginable for what was three games in the making, and was badly received we're getting free DLC to make it better.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 was... well, Call of Duty. It wasn't technically reviewed bombed - those low scores are entirely accurate.

Diablo 3 was rendered entirely unplayable for over half of it's pre-order and day one purchasers. And for those that could play it, they were treated to disconnects, character deletions, lag, random server resets and extended periods of maintenance. And half of the player base hasn't even fucking tried multiplayer yet.
This wasn't review bombed: a game that is simply unplayable gets a zero.

Defending Always On DRM and Pay2Win games isn't justifiable. Blizzard are raping you, and you're not only paying them for it, you're defending them for doing it.
Anyone who bought Diablo 3 get's what they deserve.

captcha: moot point. Touché, internet, touché.

Something just came to mind while I was reading your post. It kinda goes something like this, just replace names with Blizzard and/or Activision:

Captcha: on cloud nine. Yep, I soon will be.

Yay! Another review bombing. It does nothing but destroy the credibility of the site itself. Yeah Diablo 3 has its issues but they don't constitute a 0. I mean really, you can't wait 5 minutes to access the game. You waited longer than that to install the game so why can't you wait that little bit extra. Those connection issues constitute at most 0.5 being taken from the score. The game itself puts it well above 8 (from what I've played so far) so theres no reason for a 0 score at all.

Crono1973:

Draech:

Crono1973:

Clearly those people should have checked with YOU to see how many points should be knocked off for Day 1 DLC and server problems that prevent them from playing a $60 game.

I dont really know what to respond to that.

Clearly those people should have played the fuckin game rather than act like spoiled children if they want to do a review.

I see so they should just ignore that the server issues are preventing them from playing the game?

Its working now.

1/10?

I made my point.

So is there anyone here who still thinks that user review scores are indicative of the game's quality in any way, shape or form?

Because if there is such a person, I'd ask them politely to stop being dead wrong.

Sample "review"

Absurd how badly blizzard screwed this up. There isn't even an offline mode. What kind of Diablo doesn't have offline gameplay? Other than this the game itself is very fun and plays smoothly, even on my macbook air.

"game is very fun" and he gave it a 0/10. Good job, internet person.

Although review bombing sounds unwarrented (i.e. giving a 0 purely because of the fact that Blizzard are incapable of doing something that's pretty much impossible) but, despite how silly the user reviews are, the concerns are very valid.

I don't think there's much point in caring over nerdragers complaining about the servers not opening. It is pretty much unavoidable

However, things like the always online is a hindrance to the enjoyment of the game, not only to people who can't even play the game, but also to people with sub-par internet connections.

User scores are pretty much 100% meaningless as an average. You have to put them on a case by case basis. However Blizzard should pay attention to these concerns. I think they should have listened about the always-online issue. It's a strange place to be in as someone with a half-decent PC without a constant broadband connection, but there should have been some sort of comprimise. Maybe a seperate client for offline mode? It's just an idea, one that is meaningless now since the game is already released, but more should be done than just complaining and giving the game a 0 on metacritic. It's 90% useless.

Draech:
And this ladies and gents, gamers cannot be taken serious as a demographic

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5139-Taking-Videogames-Seriously

OT: Yeah, well, its Metacritic. Who cares.

*Goes back to playing Diablo III*

(*While he can before the servers collapse when everyone else gets home from work*)

These negative scores can't really be justified.

DIII was always going to be online-only, so you have no grounds for believing otherwise. I'd say it's just down to server issues on launch day. They've simply underestimated demand, nothing more.

Yeah, you have a right to be annoyed that it's online-only, but you didn't have to buy it. It's old news.

I also refuse to believe that any Blizzard game legitimately deserves an average of 3.3.

It's mostly people over-reacting to all of the changes, if I find a single review that dosn't talk about the previous games, I'll be pleasently surprised (Also you shouldn't review a game because the servers are down, or else many MMOs would get review bombed on their first day)

I have to say I find all of this whole thing immensely funny. It's like blizzard started making heaps of money and absolutely forgot how to program anything. I mean Christ, Activision-Blizzard is the largest videogame company in the history of man, and everything they are coming out with progressively sucks more and more. SC2 balance is a joke. It took them 8 years to make it, and the graphics looked like they were from 2007. They actively removed tons of battlenet features and functionality, for absolutely no reason(but hey it can sync to facebook now.) And now I look at Diablo 3, with the same old clickfest gameplay, like they are trying to make the most boring game possible. The graphics look like a game from 2005. And I honestly don't really care about graphics, but Jesus if you aren't going to change anything about your game in the new version, you should probably have really good graphics. Because otherwise it makes me wonder what the hell you were doing the whole time you were supposed to be developing software.

The Madman:
I'd be more surprised if it wasn't getting review bombed. Seriously, what popular game these days isn't? Pretty sure it's just a right of passage at this point: Congrats, your game is popular and mainstream enough it's been review bombed!

Minecraft
Half-Life 2
BioShock
Portal
Portal 2
Skyrim
Oblivion
Mass Effect
Mass Effect 2
Company of Heroes
Starcraft 2
Call Of Duty 4:MW
Team Fortress 2
Fallout 3
Fallout New Vegas
Dragon Age: Origins
Total War: Shogun 2
Left 4 Dead
Left 4 Dead 2
The Witcher 2 Assassins of Kings

Basically any game that comes even close to delivering on expectations without tripping all over itself.

My friend that has it is loving it. Personally, I do not think the 0 scores are justified. His opinion is as follows:

"Its like Diablo 2 just so much better".

Since Diablo 2 has kept me entertained for the last... 11 years? (Jesus christ I feel old) and countless playthroughs across both singleplayer, lan play and Ladder, well, yeah. Sounds like an easy 8 to me without even touching it.

Bitching about the nature of the always online is valid. But, I have to aggree with many others, it was stated before release it was always online, yada yada yada. Now, review bombing say, Silent Hunter 5 due to the nature of its DRM is something I can get behind (Had to reinstall it countless times, when I finally got it to work it was after something close to 5 hours of searching for fixes etc) because that game had broken DRM.

However, review bombing it because an always online game is not working on day of release? Just moronic tbh. WoW shuts down on Wednesdays. Should WoW be review bombed every Wednesday because "I am paying a monthly subscription and I cannot play my game for a few hours!". You KNEW it was always online, you KNEW it was going to be a bitch on day of release. Review bombing it for those reasons is just retarded.

Well, Review Bombing is just retarded anyway. The only people it will deter are morons who only look at the review score. People who know anything about games will ignore the score, the publishers will ignore the score... It does absolutely nothing. Well, not quite nothing. It destroys the validty of any review score and makes it harder for a publisher to rate how successful a game has been.

Oh, and wasnt there a case recently of a studio not getting royalties from its parents company due to not scoring quite high enough by a couple of percent? If fewer douches had bombed the score, they would be earning.

So, review bombing does nothing but damage the industry and make scores invalid.

tldr;

You knew it was going to be always online. All I have heard about the gameplay is that it is fucking awesome. I know it sucks that you cannot play the game on day one but, meh, shit happens.

I didnt go and review bomb Mount and Blade after I bought it in the steam sale. It was about 3 days before I was assigned with a key. Until then I could not play the game.

black_knight1337:
Yay! Another review bombing. It does nothing but destroy the credibility of the site itself. Yeah Diablo 3 has its issues but they don't constitute a 0. I mean really, you can't wait 5 minutes to access the game. You waited longer than that to install the game so why can't you wait that little bit extra. Those connection issues constitute at most 0.5 being taken from the score. The game itself puts it well above 8 (from what I've played so far) so theres no reason for a 0 score at all.

It's not just been "5 minutes" for a large part of the playerbase.

The irony of all the complainers and haters is 90% of them will still inevitably go buy Diablo 3. If they truly TRULY hated or didn't care about the game they wouldn't bother even talking about it. Sad children and man children complaining that something isn't exactly as they want it to be and nothing more as usual.

I started Act 2 tonight and it has been god damn awesome. Yeah the disconnects and inability to login has been annoying but its hardly an issue that will last for more than a couple days. By weeks end we'll have heard the last of it.

first off, metacritic are just people who only think in 1 and 10. between doesn't exist.

and i played Diablo III, am i annoyed with the connection issue? ofcourse, but i knew that it would happen. when you see the negative reviews it are people who are just mad because of the connection or they are straight lying with statements as: "i've finished the game already".

they should add a lock on the game after a week after release, so people who actually played it for a while, can make a review. why do you think that there aren't any critic reviews? because there aren't any! the only people who played enough to make a solid opinion are the players who did one huge run starting at the minute it was available.

the main issue i have with metacritic is that you can give a score, but you won't have to justify it with arguments. so every idiot/hater/fanboy can rate it without having played the game at all.

This is literally the only site that will defend every single attempt at taking away consumer rights. Good job Escapist, you've lived up to your reputation well.

Smeggs:
I've never played any of the Diablo series, could someone shed some light on this pasionate hatred for D3? I've just been wondering, did they fuck with the gameplay a lot or something? Really bad story? ORIGIN?

Honestly the game itself is pretty good, but there are currently a fair numbe of bugs and server issues that a lot of people are angry because they wanted their game to somehow be perfect at launch. I agree the DRM sucks (I wasn't able to play single player for a while because the servers were down) but the game itself is pretty entertaining and brings back a lot of nostalgia for me.

I remember sitting in an internet cafe with 4 buddies of mine freaking out and running like hell to get away from the butcher. A those were the times.

blackdwarf:
and i played Diablo III, am i annoyed with the connection issue? ofcourse, but i knew that it would happen. when you see the negative reviews it are people who are just mad because of the connection or they are straight lying with statements as: "i've finished the game already".

But people really beat it already:

http://www.geekologie.com/2012/05/congratulations-fan-beats-diablo-3-in-12.php

Shortest i heard was 4 hours for some korean streamers to beat normal.

http://www.justin.my/2012/05/diablo-3-dead-in-6-hours-of-launching-in-korea/

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Draech:
And this ladies and gents, gamers cannot be taken serious as a demographic

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5139-Taking-Videogames-Seriously

OT: Yeah, well, its Metacritic. Who cares.

*Goes back to playing Diablo III*

(*While he can before the servers collapse when everyone else gets home from work*)

Ho? I thought you weren't getting D3?

OT: lol metacritic.

Why do people even look at Metacritic? It's been made pretty clear over the past couple years that you're just going to get raging fanboys, raging haters, and paid-off 'proper' reviewers. This is nothing new.

Normally I'd have a problem of such negative scores coming out so quickly for any game (even those as shitty as ME3) as usually it takes longer than this to make a true determination of a game. However Diablo 3 is the exception. It has had a very lengthy open beta. And the game obviously has not changed much or @ all from it. As such people already have a good feel for this game and if it sucks or not.
Also there are the very obvious and highly publicized things of always online DRM even for single player and the pay-to-win-house. Personally I have no problems with the always online. However that does not mean others do not have a case against it and for those it truly prevents to play the game they should give Diablo 3 a 0 because as someone said earlier does not work = 0. And for the pay-to-win-house that alone makes its score not be able to go above 35% of whatever the scale is for me. Include the removal of customized stats, removal of picking our own skills, the skill limit, and the other ways this game has been dumbed down making feel like a wholly worse and different game from Diablo and I can understand and even agree with all scores ranging from 1 - 3 out of 10.

lapan:

blackdwarf:
and i played Diablo III, am i annoyed with the connection issue? ofcourse, but i knew that it would happen. when you see the negative reviews it are people who are just mad because of the connection or they are straight lying with statements as: "i've finished the game already".

But people really beat it already:

http://www.geekologie.com/2012/05/congratulations-fan-beats-diablo-3-in-12.php

Shortest i heard was 4 hours for some korean streamers to beat normal.

http://www.justin.my/2012/05/diablo-3-dead-in-6-hours-of-launching-in-korea/

that is true, did forget about that. .... dammit, now i don't have a counter-argument. :P

ok, the statement i saw yesterday on critic was that some people said was that they already finished it under 3 hours. that was not true, but ok, weak argument.

way2sl0w:
Serves them right for removing everything that was ever good from the best game of all time (d2) and cramming always online crap and not having it even work correctly at launch after 10 years!

Listen to this man. For he speaks the truth. (this has to be the first time I've wanted the Escapist to have a like button)

Captcha = quotations.
Cute Captcha. Cute.

Smeggs:
I've never played any of the Diablo series, could someone shed some light on this pasionate hatred for D3? I've just been wondering, did they fuck with the gameplay a lot or something? Really bad story? ORIGIN?

They removed all customization from your characters via removing stat customization on level up, removing your ability to pick your own skill, (instead stats and skills are given automatically) made you have a limit to 7 skills where you previously could have as many as there were on the tree. This makes off the wall builds like a melee Sorceress or Fist of the Heavens using Paladin no longer doable because we can not make our stats fit our weird builds.
And also they added the pay-to-win auction house.
And this is just my speculation mind you but I bet that Blizzard removed all ability to make your character unique and more powerful on your own so that your now forced to use the auction house to get godly equipment. Whereas in Diablo 2 you could make you character very powerful through smart stat and skill customization and could rely on the average to good equipment you would usually get through drops. Now you need the unique great equipment to do anything late game and Blizzard is there to try and take your money to be able to win.

The problem is here is that Diablo III delivered on all it's promises. They have been up front about everything. The skills might be the wrong way. In fact I am going to say I do not like the new system yet, but if blizzard is known for anything it's about patching until something is nailed down and set.

I am going to say it again I enjoy the DRM... I live in China and play with my friends in the US. I have not had an issue yet. I am happy that finally the game will have good in game economy. Blizz should get a cut of that money. I don't plan on buying or selling anything in the real-money market so it doesn't affect me. But seeing these Chinese farmers here I am happy they finally get some money back after how many copies of war3 were pirated.

I haven't bought D3 because I kinda saw this from a mile away. However, if I had, I would be pissed as well. I mean, buying a car and not having it working? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't rate the car 8 or 9/10.

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?

The only thing it really proves is that angry people like to be vindictive on review sites (which we knew already). The same thing happens a lot with books and films.

User reviews of anything remotely popular have a tendency to get really wonky really fast because the only people who care enough to write them are either:
a) gushing fanboys, out to defend their favourite title, or
b) people who are enraged by something to do with the product/franchise/company/country-the-company-is-based-in and are out for revenge

It's the reason you rarely find a neutral user review of something like Twilight.

I think it is a sign of entitlement because everyone knew it has always on DRM and blizzard did say there would be launch issues so people had time to cancel preorders of they wanted to this would be like EA announciong day one DLC 6 months before launch of a game and then people complaining about it at launch.

Arontala:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Draech:
And this ladies and gents, gamers cannot be taken serious as a demographic

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5139-Taking-Videogames-Seriously

OT: Yeah, well, its Metacritic. Who cares.

*Goes back to playing Diablo III*

(*While he can before the servers collapse when everyone else gets home from work*)

Ho? I thought you weren't getting D3?

A friend reaaaalllly wanted me to get it so we could play in bro-op and I owed him one, so I bought it on launch day. I wouldn't have got it otherwise but meh.

distortedreality:
Has there been a AAA title released in the past year or so that hasn't been review bombed?

Is pretty sad really.

The Witcher, Fall of the Samurai, Skyrim, MW3... Pretty much every game that was half decent and didn't force broken DRM on you.

"Blizzard screwed up big time"
I lol'd.

You know what I had to deal with yesterday? I waited for a friend to get his copy, at 5pm CET, ie: European prime time. I could not connect to the game until 10-10h30 pm
I was annoyed, but I did not go on the forums to demand a refund for the game not coming out on the precise hour they wanted, due to server congestion, nor did I call out Blizzard for ties with the Mafia ( genuine Blizzard forums dumbassery).
I waited, and what I saw was amazing. A community manager based in the US posted updates about server-side problems every 10 minutes, answered personal twitter questions about the launch, and other community managers sifted through hundreds and hundreds of pages of stupid crap to answer to real questions.

So yes, the D3 launch sucked, and Blizzard could have handled it better, but to say that they suck cock for it, and that D3 is a bad game for it is asinine.

It's deserved. Whether it's that people hate the dumbed-down WoW-clone gameplay or simply aren't able to log in and play it, well, they are entitled to give it a low score. That's the whole point of consumer reviews as opposed to professional reviews.

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?

Its just more evidence on the already massive pile that a chunk of the gaming community has the maturity of a five year old. Every community has them its just that with gaming they are louder and professionals just love to throw them in the spotlight which makes it worse and seem acceptable.

Zeh Don:
Diablo 3 was rendered entirely unplayable for over half of it's pre-order and day one purchasers. And for those that could play it, they were treated to disconnects, character deletions, lag, random server resets and extended periods of maintenance. And half of the player base hasn't even fucking tried multiplayer yet.
This wasn't review bombed: a game that is simply unplayable gets a zero.

So what you are saying is that nearly every single popular multiplayer game deserves to get a 0? That is what you are saying because this always happens. There is really nothing that can be done about it. You just cant test a game and make sure it will be stable when three million people all try to log in at once. You just have to accept that there will be problems and deal with it.

Hell Blizzard straight out warned everybody last week that this exact same situation would most likely happen. Anybody who expected otherwise is an idiot.

Wether or not they deserve a bad score should be based not on the obvious happening but how fast they can fix it and get the game running for everybody.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked