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
 

pure.Wasted:
SNAP

I'm sorry, but I strongly feel that you're being unreasonably biased in favor of Blizzard, to a fanboy-degree. I would refute all your arguments, but I feel that I'm wasting my breath. Good will? Since when did Blizzard have good will? They've put in bullshit DRM in their game, for one, and there are tons of other reasons over the years for players to be grumpy at them. You're not even being reasonable. I think it's more than reasonable to expect one of the most successful companies in the industry to at least ensure that their bullshit DRM method and lack of lan and other crap at least WORKS.

You can rent servers, so that's no excuse. OK bye bye now, this is my last post in this thread.

illas:
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.

The problem as I see it with the review bomb though, is that most people aren't reviewing the game, they're reviewing Blizzards network infrastructure. Blizzard did their best to warn people prior to the games release and on the login screens and at least went through the problems of acknowledging the problems there.

Did Blizzard fuck up? A little bit, yeah, I'm not going to sit here and defend the fact that they were not ready, this problem occurs for pretty much all title releases they do, and I can only assume they keep repeatedly underestimating the number of players which were going to jump in.

Having said that though, the servers are (apparently) fixed, after the maintenance last night capacity was seemingly increased and I've not seen any problems at all today, and if it is the case that it's been fixed, people who are still giving negative reviews for connectivity problems probably don't even own the game, and all reviews about not being able to connect currently are officially moot.

The rating is a permanent review of the quality of the game, and yes, the game had day 1 problems, but in 3 months time, even if the servers have 100% uptime, those reviews of "I CAN'T CONNECT TO THE SERVERS" will still be sat there. It's the general short-sightedness of people and this "review bomb" that makes the whole thing just frankly silly.

TheKasp:

Aprilgold:

Diablo... Not... Offline... Must contain... Want to point and laugh... BAHAHAHA!! Oh god thats a good one.

*looks at Diablo 3*...

Yeah, it seems you are not able to read. Diablo 3 is fucking obvious not an offline game. It was known months before any kind of release or preorder could've been made. So what is your point?

That the notion that Diablo in some form can't be played offline is like saying Tetris is the single greatest multiplayer achievement in all of mankind.

Metacritic lost its accountability long ago, I don't know why people still pay attention to it.

Aprilgold:

That the notion that Diablo in some form can't be played offline is like saying Tetris is the single greatest multiplayer achievement in all of mankind.

And yet we look at Diablo 3, a game which is obviously an online game only. And not only that, this was known MONTHS before any preorder could've been made.

So now please show me the one sentence where I talked about Diablo. Or stop quoting me if you can't grasp the obvious.

TheKasp:

Aprilgold:

That the notion that Diablo in some form can't be played offline is like saying Tetris is the single greatest multiplayer achievement in all of mankind.

And yet we look at Diablo 3, a game which is obviously an online game only. And not only that, this was known MONTHS before any preorder could've been made.

So now please show me the one sentence where I talked about Diablo. Or stop quoting me if you can't grasp the obvious.

OK, here you go.

Mentioning of Diablo 3 are and follow, your first quote.

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.

And your second quote.

TheKasp:

*looks at Diablo 3*...

Yeah, it seems you are not able to read. Diablo 3 is fucking obvious not an offline game. It was known months before any kind of release or preorder could've been made. So what is your point?

Yes, you have said Diablo 3 a total of three times.

As far as my sources say, there is a multiplayer mode but its so far optional that I honestly can't believe they think anyone will care. Diablo 2's multiplayer wasn't very good and Multiplayer in Diablo is not impossible, but removes the element of losing nerve.

While I'm on the topic, DRM does not make a singleplayer game a multiplayer game always, like you've been saying.

Once again, my point is the fact that your praising Diablo 1,2,3 for its online when the games have always been about Singleplayer. Its like praising a Mario Brothers Rip Off as the most original game ever made.

so I picked Demon Hunter class and I can't play the game because of some dumb ass glitch :/
yeah I think this warrants a 0 score review

Somehow I doubt Blizzard cares about it. Meta Critic has no value to them as they don't have to worry about any bonuses from scores as some people have, they're completely self sufficient and they have a legion of fans anyways who have already bought the game and couldn't care less about people review bombing.

Not that it completely invalidates their complaints but it isn't a good way to try and "get back at Blizzard" as they don't care about the reviews as much as some other companies have.

Makes you wonder why people keep coming back to it anyways.

Aprilgold:

Yes, you have said Diablo 3 a total of three times.

Since you seem to read more between my lines than the pope in the bible just concentrate on what I've made bold:

I've said DIABLO 3 three times. I did not speak of Diablo 1 or Diablo 2 and I've never praised any of those games for anything. I stated just the obvious because people like you seem to have the problem of understanding the obvious:

Diablo was an offline game.
Diablo 2 was an offline game.
Diablo 3 is NOT an offline game.

I did not say anything about singleplayer or multiplayer nor something about it's quality.

Learn to read.

TheKasp:

Aprilgold:

Yes, you have said Diablo 3 a total of three times.

Since you seem to read more between my lines than the pope in the bible just concentrate on what I've made bold:

I've said DIABLO 3 three times. I did not speak of Diablo 1 or Diablo 2 and I've never praised any of those games for anything. I stated just the obvious because people like you seem to have the problem of understanding the obvious:

Diablo was an offline game.
Diablo 2 was an offline game.
Diablo 3 is NOT an offline game.

I did not say anything about singleplayer or multiplayer nor something about it's quality.

Learn to read.

Diablo 3 is a online game = Diablo 3 supports online over all else, being connected to the internet does not make a singleplayer game a game that highly supports multiplayer.

Learn that being vague is being vague, plain and simple.

The 10 out of 10s are undeserved. The 0/10 are unwarranted.

The resulting aggregate score of a 3.3 is fitting however.
Consider the extreme scores as a thumbs up or down for a product.

D3 is just a fancy new paint job on an unoriginal sequel with gameplay features actually cut from the original and draconical DRM and pay2win added. 3.3 sounds fair.

Aprilgold:

Learn that being vague is being vague, plain and simple.

I wasn't vague. You just interpreted some shit into it.

I just said it is an online game. Nothing else. You came up with D1+2 being offline which I did not deny nor did I imply that they weren't.

TheKasp:

Aprilgold:

Learn that being vague is being vague, plain and simple.

I wasn't vague. You just interpreted some shit into it.

I just said it is an online game. Nothing else. You came up with D1+2 being offline which I did not deny nor did I imply that they weren't.

Once again, being vague with meanings is being vague with meanings. If my sentence was "I have Aids" it would not mean that I have no sexually transmitted disease but a cat named Aids.

Once again, stating that Diablo 3 is a online game is like the above. People are going to get confused on what you meant. Once again, don't be vague next time.

Perhaps it's time that more reviewers got the copy of the game that the users end up getting. I guarantee that every professional reviewer to date played prior to release, either on an offline version, or an online one with free access to servers, rather than the locked-down, overloaded DRM-heavy version that the public play.

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

Why not? If a game does not work why should it have a score higher than 0? Not being able to play it might not have been a big deal for you, but for others it was. The single player doesn't require online functionality, so why does server issues prevent offline play?

How would you feel if you went to see a Movie only to be told that there's not space in the cinema, so you can't watch it just yet? You wouldn't be happy would you.

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?

Blizzard has put in a Real-Money Auction House to deter hacking/gold selling things, but have a sub-clause that gives them a percentage of each sale so people are calling them money-grubbing greedy [expletive] [expletive].

Blizzard has implemented the same DRM they used for Starcraft II except in a slightly more harsh manner (Starcraft II prevented you from playing the Skirmish mode without an outside mod if you were offline, but still allowed you to play the campaign; Diablo III spawns campaign things like enemies and loot via the server so without an internet connection you only have half the game) so people are decrying them because of other people who have less-than-solid internet connections.

Blizzard has used a more stylized art direction for Diablo III than the previous two games, which... people are complaining about for some reason.

Blizzard warned gamers that the servers would be bogged down on release day, so when it happened and the servers were down for the better part of yesterday (American at least, I think European/Asian servers were up for most of it) everyone got outraged anyway because... well, it's Blizzard.

I've yet to see any legitimate complaints centered around the game itself and not purely based on the practices of Blizzard surrounding the game. It's fine to not support the company because you don't agree with their decisions, but review-bombing a game because of corporate decisions instead of legitimate gameplay issues is just childish.

Personally, I think that the Metacritic user reviews are just about completely negligable at this point.

FrostyCoolSlug:

illas:
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.

The problem as I see it with the review bomb though, is that most people aren't reviewing the game, they're reviewing Blizzards network infrastructure. Blizzard did their best to warn people prior to the games release and on the login screens and at least went through the problems of acknowledging the problems there.

Did Blizzard fuck up? A little bit, yeah, I'm not going to sit here and defend the fact that they were not ready, this problem occurs for pretty much all title releases they do, and I can only assume they keep repeatedly underestimating the number of players which were going to jump in.

Having said that though, the servers are (apparently) fixed, after the maintenance last night capacity was seemingly increased and I've not seen any problems at all today, and if it is the case that it's been fixed, people who are still giving negative reviews for connectivity problems probably don't even own the game, and all reviews about not being able to connect currently are officially moot.

The rating is a permanent review of the quality of the game, and yes, the game had day 1 problems, but in 3 months time, even if the servers have 100% uptime, those reviews of "I CAN'T CONNECT TO THE SERVERS" will still be sat there. It's the general short-sightedness of people and this "review bomb" that makes the whole thing just frankly silly.

Oh, I agree completely, if the issues are fixed and people are still review-bombing that's just childish maliciousness.

C2Ultima:
Personally, I think that the Metacritic user reviews are just about completely negligable at this point.

Just about?

When were user reviews ever meaningful on any level? There are very, very few people I trust to be even remotely objective about anything, and "strangers on the internet" would not make that list. The user review section has always been for axe grinding and tantrum throwing.

Metabombing, once more revealing the kind of entitled twits that are ruining the game industry.
That's right kids, if a game does something to annoy then you needn't worry. You don't have to convey your anger with those scary over complicated words or with any taste, now you can just go on a tantrum like a 3 - year old spoiled brat and meta bomb something. Seriously, outside of making us look like spoiled immature twats I truly doubty metabombing does anything. It's definitely not making us look better and I feel almost guilty to be a gamer when I see this kind of stuff.

Maybe this is why the game industry is in the condition that it's in: Because it's the one that we deserve.

Aprilgold:
snip

Meh, we seem to have come to a basic understanding *throws a coockie at Aprilgold*.

Better than argueing about nothing.

TheKasp:

Aprilgold:
snip

Meh, we seem to have come to a basic understanding *throws a coockie at Aprilgold*.

Better than argueing about nothing.

YAAY! Cookies..... OH GAWD, ITS POISONED!
*falls dead*

lSHaDoW-FoXl:
Metabombing, once more revealing the kind of entitled twits that are ruining the game industry.

lSHaDoW-FoXl:
I truly doubt metabombing does anything.

I thought you just said it was ruining the game industry!?

Seriously though, it doesn't do anything. There might be someone out there who bases their game purchases on metacritics user score, but there might be someone out there who bases their game purchases on throwing bones, too. Most people know better.

pure.Wasted:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

pure.Wasted:

Really, the moment you make a downpayment on a house you can move in? The moment you buy a ticket for a plane you can get on the plane and fly to your destination? The moment you pre-ordered Diablo 3 you were able to play it? How is this any different from the months you spent waiting for your pre-order?

1) Didn't buy D3. Have no intention to. Will wait for Torchlight 2.

2) When you buy a CD, DVD, Book, or any other product that only involves you and the creator of the product, you can use it.

When you place an online order for a CD, DVD, Book, or any other product that only involves you and the creator of the product, you can't use it. You have to wait for it to be packaged, shipped, and delivered. Furthermore, if it's a game, it has to be installed. You can't play it until you've installed it.

All of this is perfectly OK. But saying "if it's a massively multiplayer game, the servers have to stabilize" isn't OK. Uh, what? Why does everything else gets a pass?

I don't want my stuff to have to be delivered to me, that's an inconvenience. I want it teleported here immediately, although there's no need, since it's already auto-installed on my computer, because I want that too.

???

If I order a product from a website with first class delivery I expect to have it arrive the next working day, if I don't receive my product on that day I am well within my rights to be unhappy and can even talk to the website or the postal service to get reparations for the delay.

It is exactly the same with games and release dates.

Your argument is ridiculous and just as ludicrous as that of the people review bombing the game.

On-topic: I thought we stopped taking reviews seriously months ago, it's clear that the professional reviewers have their balls in the iron grip of the industry and are forced to write nothing but praise for even sub-par games at the threat of having review copies sent to them weeks in advance and user reviews have become a vent for the misguided ire of neckbeards the world over.

My brother gave me a guest key to Diablo 3, whilst I question quite a few design choices it is definitely not a bad game and I'll probably pick it up when I can get it as cheap or cheaper than Torchlight 2.

question. one of my friends and a huge diablo fan, lives in a house that is physically incapable of getting an internet connection. is he just whining if he cant play a game he was looking forward to because the singleplayer requires a constant internet connection?

To put it juuuuuust bluntly enough to avoid a low-content warning:

Yes

When people are putting 0 reviews screaming 'Max Payne dies at the end' for D3, you know you shouldn't be paying attention to the reviews, frankly.

Meh I looked at the reviews some mention Day one DLC which there is none of and claims they are never buying another EA product and then there are the ones about max payne and even a few about mass effect 3.

So while there may be a proper opinion in there it's probably drowned out by spam and general rants and rage posts.

As if anyone cares about the user scores of games on Metacritic anyways. Seriously, go to any game that isn't 100% loved by the internet and it will usually be around 4 or 5. Only really great indie games and sports titles seem to get good scores in the user review section. Oh well, it doesn't matter to me in the slightest.

So, um, server issues require a zero? DRM requires a zero? How about, you know, doing some actual reviewing in your user review? I'm not saying D3 needs a string of 9.0s or borderline perfect scores, but a little objectivity wouldn't hurt anyone. The game runs just fine server issues notwithstanding, the mechanics are properly structured and my one big gripe is a lot of the challenge seems to have been sucked out of the experience.

D3 will undoubtedly be very successful, but part of the reason why is how it's been made highly accessible. ActiBlizz is clearly trying to bring in a new fanbase, while the hardest of the hardcore, those who wrote build manuals at places like JudgeHype or The Phrozen Keep, are going to rightfully bitch at the reduced modularity of the experience.

Even so, it's hard not to look are review bombs and not see entitlement. There's something slightly wrong with my generation, I think, in that most people think angrily demanding things or defacing a public service is going to get them what they want. If you're looking for examples other than the Mass Effect 3 kerfuffle, head on over to CBC News and check out the current student strike movements in Quebec. Canada has some of the lowest registration and higher education-related fees available, coupled with top-tier teaching resources.

What do those idiots do? They bitch and moan. They seem to conveniently forget that while I'm paying 700$ per semester, my buddies south of the border have to pony up two thousand bucks per semester.

Newsflash, review bombers: the Larfleeze Strategy works when you're six years old and below. You're customers, you don't GET to make demands. DRM sucks? Fine, go buy Torchlight 2. Just have the decency to avoid trolling those who bought the game by saying Skidrow's going to find a way to emulate some of Blizzard's server-side tech.

Elmoth:
Actually a studio that was aquired by Blizzard and renamed Blizzard North made Diablo 2. Then they got rid of them and took it upon themselves to take way too long to make a bad sequel to it.

And the people in Blizzard North then went on to make Torchlight and Torchlight 2.

I'm glad none of my games have DRM. :/

I like metacritic, because I can sift through the user reviews until I find intelligent arguments for both sides. Of course the zero-bombs are worthless, but so are most of the "professional" reviews. I strongly suspect that a lot of professional reviewers are paid off, in one way or another. So I like user reviews, because I take the time to find the ones that aren't from braying jackasses.

Haven't played Diablo 3, but I suspect I would be disappointed in it. A lot of the non-rabid, level-headed, low-to-middling reviews complain about removal of stat/skill customization. If what they're saying is true, that would be a pretty damn big negative for me. Also, my internet craps out pretty frequently. I do think the online requirement for single player is pretty sleazy. I doubt I'll ever buy the game.

If you're worried about ActiBlizz / Corporate Evil, remember that you can vote with your wallet. Shouldn't the default choice, when confronted with a game that seems really kinda "iffy", be *not* to buy it? Even if it's Diablo? I just think it's kinda funny: from what I've gathered so far, the game seems kinda in-the-middle, some good, some bad, probably not for me. But I bet that a lot of the people frothing with rage against the Draconian Regime will still buy the game (and those who've already bought it will still use the auction house, albeit complaining that they've been "forced"). You can't have it both ways.

shrekfan246:

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?

Blizzard has put in a Real-Money Auction House to deter hacking/gold selling things, but have a sub-clause that gives them a percentage of each sale so people are calling them money-grubbing greedy [expletive] [expletive].

Bullshit. They implemented it in the way they did to fuck the consumer over. Plain and simple. Running a server-side setup where gear earned in offline single player did not accrue to your online character(but that character could still be leveled up) would have been the proper way for such a ploy. However, that would have allowed people to play the game offline without dealing with the AH bullshit.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked