Here we go again.

[AndyNPC]

Are you guys ready for round two of "entitlement"? (http://www.egmnow.com/8bitenvy/diablo-iii-metacritic-user-score-people-dumb/) We all know a game that was hyped and marketed as much as this can't possibly be bad, right guys? I've got an idea, lets just only allow professional reviewers to post scores on meta-critic so we don't have any more of those dang dirty trolls ruining our good name.

[Banjokun]

:facepalm :brickwall: Welp, I might as well say that I blame /v/ for this.

[The Colonel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko1sklmOR9E

[Hey, I'm Grump]

Ladies and Gentlemen, the arbitrary uselessness of game review scores.

[DarthConker]

:facepalm :brickwall: Welp, I might as well say that I blame /v/ for this.
/v/ doesn't even care about metacritic as far as I know, so no.

[Spudfish93]

First world problems. Humanity makes me ****ing sick sometimes.

[AndyNPC]

First world problems. Humanity makes me ****ing sick sometimes.

Oh come on now. It's not like we have anything more important to discuss on a video games message board.

[Adam]

The logic behind this is that an actual reviewer is more inclined to be more in depth than the guy who says "Found a game breaking bug. 1 star."

But I hate review numbers anyway so...

[Guitar]

I read some of the..."reviews."

I want to kick a puppy now.

[IceKeyMaster]

The only people stupider then the people who post user reviews on Metacritic are the people who give half a shit about Metacritic.

[Articerile]

I'm fairly sure not being able to play a game you have purchased in Single Player because of a server being overloaded is a very negative thing.
Especially since the server was overloaded in the beta.
And there were less people in the beta.

I know it's a matter of 'entitlement', but I'm fairly sure that if you've purchased a game that you're 'entitled' to play it.

[DementedSun]

Yeah, it is kind of bullshit that they are selling the game, and people are unable to play AFTER they have bought it with the expectation of actually being able to play it. If they weren't going to be able to handle it, they should have either held back releasing it, or sent out a warning much earlier, as they seemingly already had enough information to expect this would happen from the beta.

But giving it a 0 just because the servers are overloaded is kind of... childish. But the majority of people who submit user reviews like this tend to be childish themselves, or actual children :L.

/Haven't bought or played any Diablo game myself including this, but yeah...

[The Colonel]

Fun fact: Even if the servers aren't down, if the server is full, you can be queued for the ability to play singleplayer.

And that's one reason why it's a bad ****ing game.

[Aaron Anderson]

Y'all just mad and entitled babbies jealous that you can't afford to play Diablo III. So what if it has always online DRM and lack of PVP? That just makes the game better imo.
And if people don't like it then why did they buy it?

[Madous]

This will be fun
I'm fairly sure not being able to play a game you have purchased in Single Player because of a server being overloaded is a very negative thing.
Especially since the server was overloaded in the beta.
And there were less people in the beta.

I know it's a matter of 'entitlement', but I'm fairly sure that if you've purchased a game that you're 'entitled' to play it.
I played at the midnight release of the game. That was 3AM my time. I was able to log in at 4:30AM and begin playing. Blizzard can handle servers such as WoW because it doesn't involve literally millions of people trying to log in at once; it's a steady flow of people getting on and off at normal times. After 4:30, the servers were totally stable for the rest of the night/morning. Yes, it went down to fix a bug here and there, but that was planned and only lasted an hour or so the next day. Sure, you're entitled to play it, but does one hour off of the release really make that huge a difference? Does one hour at the midnight release make the rest of the game in its entirety bad? No. Not by a long shot.
Yeah, it is kind of bullshit that they are selling the game, and people are unable to play AFTER they have bought it with the expectation of actually being able to play it. If they weren't going to be able to handle it, they should have either held back releasing it, or sent out a warning much earlier, as they seemingly already had enough information to expect this would happen from the beta.
See the above. Not to mention (I know this is a long shot) there was a guy on /v/ who claimed to have a group of computers in the 200k range that attacked the servers at the exact moment of release. He did the same thing on Diablo 2 during major patches. It isn't an excuse for anything, but assuming it's true, they couldn't prepare for something like that. I already answered you in the above anyway.
Fun fact: Even if the servers aren't down, if the server is full, you can be queued for the ability to play singleplayer.

And that's one reason why it's a bad ****ing game.
There is no queue in Diablo 3. The servers were never and never will be "full". Please learn what you are talking about before you post.

Yes, you cannot play the single player section if the servers are down (and anyone with experience in Blizzard games knows that their server downtimes are the extreme minimums. I can't even remember the last time StarCraft's servers went down), but that is because the game features jump-in-and-out co-op. If you're played Dead Island, it's exactly like that. You set your game to open and people instantly join you. Friends can always join you. Not to mention the chat system, achievement system, auction house, and other miscellaneous features that all require the internet. And in today's day and age, the extreme vast majority of people that play games on PC play with a constant connection anyway. This is nothing new or crazy, and I have no problem needing a connection in order to play.

I say again: Does an hour or two of downtime on release day make the entire game, as you put it, "****ing bad"?

Oh and @Aaron: PvP is being patched in relatively soon.

@Andy: Look up any review with sense. Whether it be Game Informer, Xplay, the actual Metacritic score, or just about anyone else. You'll see the review is much, much higher than what is listed on Metacritic. If you read through those reviews, they are either made up problems just so someone has the excuse to put down a bad score, or people giving it extremely low ratings because of the aforementioned hour or two of downtime, which apparently makes the ENTIRE game absolutely horrible.


Edit: And to top it all off, Blizzard apologized and explained what happened: http://www.vg247.com/2012/05/17/blizzard-did-not-go-far-enough-prepping-diablo-iii-servers/

[Oz the Gay and Powerful]

Hey thanks for stealing my research greatman

[Madous]

If there's one thing that lets me prove that I know my shit, it's a gaming company I'm passionate for.

[Balobo]

@Andy: Look up any review with sense. Whether it be Game Informer, Xplay, the actual Metacritic score, or just about anyone else. You'll see the review is much, much higher than what is listed on Metacritic. If you read through those reviews, they are either made up problems just so someone has the excuse to put down a bad score, or people giving it extremely low ratings because of the aforementioned hour or two of downtime, which apparently makes the ENTIRE game absolutely horrible.
Because companies don't pay off professional reviewers right?

This is a common argument used by people who try to trust user reviews rather than professional ones. Professional websites and reviewers rely on the support of the companies of the games they review. If they give a poor score to the game, the company may drop support for the website (this has happened many times before). It's Activision, the loss of Activision's support could mean big trouble for a website. Dragon Age 2 has a pretty high score from reviewers and it's universally considered a shitty game. Same with FFXIII, ME3, TORtanic, etc.

[Madous]

Alright, I'll give you that one. That being said, not all reviewers are paid off. The trick is finding out what is and what isn't. Users are just as unreliable as paid interviewers, as even though Andy mocked them, there are trolls trying to make the game look bad who haven't even played it.

Being a fan of action RPGs all my life, I can easily say this one is just as good, if not better than the other games in the series, and games like it (IE Torchlight and Path or Exile). I'm not saying it's perfect - I would rank it at about an 8, but my opinion is beside the point.

[wkw427]

Needing to wait, to connect, and to stay connected to a server to play a single player game is bullshit in my book, and anyone who tries to justify it by saying "oh, well there are online aspects" can suck my disk.

Viva pinata is a single player game with online aspects. I can very well play the game offline all well.

[Madous]

You guys make it seem like such a big deal. The servers have not and will not be overloaded anymore. As I explained in my large post that people seem to not read, that is a one-time occurrence because of the absolutely massive amount of people trying to get in at once. That simply will not happen again. Saying that you can't play your SP game because the servers were overloaded for an hour, thus making it a bad game, is just a bullshit excuse at this point.

Perhaps "aspects" isn't the right word. Damn near all of the game is multiplayer. I don't hear anyone complaining about WoW when you can't connect to that for an hour.

[wkw427]

You fail to realize that WoW and Diablo are two very different games.

WoW is a MMORPG. It is an online game. It is to be expected that you can't play it if you can't get online

Diablo, while "damn near all of the game is multiplayer", also has a singleplayer mode. You should not need to be online to play singleplayer.

Lets compare two other games in a similar scope. Lets say they are also on the console. Skyrim and BK NaB

BK NaB has an online component where you can save a replay, send it to someone, send and receive blueprints, and compete on the top leaderboards. It is a mainly singleplayer game, but you need network connectivity to use the online features.

Skyrim is a single player game. It has no online components, aside from further single player mods and patches.

One of the two requires online connectivity to use the online components. The other does not need to go online to use its offline components





Tell me how you would react if you need to have your 360 connected to the internet to play skyrim. You should not and never should not

[AndyNPC]

Saying that you can't play your SP game because the servers were overloaded for an hour, thus making it a bad game, is just a bullshit excuse at this point.

Perhaps "aspects" isn't the right word. Damn near all of the game is multiplayer. I don't hear anyone complaining about WoW when you can't connect to that for an hour.

No. Always online DRM is not an acceptable practice in any case. I don't care how cheap an internet connection is today, I don't care how well maintained the authorization servers are, and I don't care how much attention is put on multiplayer. There should not be any restrictions on when I'm allowed to play, period.

[AndyNPC]

Tell me how you would react if you need to have your 360 connected to the internet to play skyrim. You should not and never should not

Actually, I heard an ugly rumor somewhere that Microsoft wants always online for the next XBox. Don't quote me on that though, the source isn't as reliable as the source I got the Mass Effect 3 ending from.

[wkw427]

+1 to that. The ONLY TIME EVER it is okay for a game to require online drm is when it is an ONLINE GAME. Like WoW. No shit sherlock it has online DRM, it is an online game


If skyrim had online drm, you'd be on the other side of the argument. You wouldn't be supporting it. But I don't know how your brain works. Would you support and enjoy skyrim if it has always-on drm, and booted you out of the game if you lost connection? If you say no, you're a hypocrite.

[Madous]

You fail to realize that Blizz is trying to make Diablo as MMO-like as possible. Which, by what you just said, is acceptable.

[Madous]

Thanks YK.

[AndyNPC]

You fail to realize that Blizz is trying to make Diablo as MMO-like as possible. Which, by what you just said, is acceptable.

That's like saying because Ubisoft said "We want Call of Duty's audience." that makes Splinter Cell: Conviction acceptable.

[Madous]

Except SC:C wasn't a good game in terms of gameplay and other game-related elements, not metagame materials.

[AndyNPC]

Except SC:C wasn't a good game in terms of gameplay and other game-related elements, not metagame materials.

My point was that Splinter Cell isn't an action shooter, and that Diablo isn't an MMO. They tried to be something they aren't. Like I said before, I don't care how badly Blizzard wants me to play online, I don't want to always have to be online.

In my opinion, Diablo 3 might be fun for someone who has never played a Diablo game before. For those who have, the tiered equipment and removal of skill-trees are a huge step back. I'd call Diablo 3 a "contraction pack" to Diablo 2.

[Madous]

In my opinion, Diablo 3 might be fun for someone who has never played a Diablo game before. For those who have, the tiered equipment and removal of skill-trees are a huge step back. I'd call Diablo 3 a "contraction pack" to Diablo 2.
As a person that played and beat Diablo 1 and 2 multiple times, I believe this is an improvement. The items tier exactly the same as it does in D2, so I don't know what you're talking about. As for skills, it allows for customization without worrying about misplacing one skillpoint and screwing up your whole build. Which many many many people did, including me. It fixes the problem of researching builds before playing, which you shouldn't need to do for a game.

[wkw427]

You fail to realize that Blizz is trying to make Diablo as MMO-like as possible. Which, by what you just said, is acceptable.

Okay, you have a point. Blizzard is trying to make diablo as much mmo-like as possible, so they add in always-on drm

But my point is that because they are trying to make the game as mmo-like as possible, they add an unnecessary layer of drm.

ANNO 2070 was tried to be made as much mmo-like as possible, with world voting and reward items that you can use online. The flaw is that, you can only use your online reward items, ONLINE, and if you use them, and then go offline and lose them,your game is pretty much ****ed up.

If they wanted to make D3 a mmo, why not... make it a MMO?

[Madous]

Just so I make my point that much deeper, here's people complaining about Diablo 2 when it came out. Notice the similarities?

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5149617219?page=1

[wkw427]

A large group of people will hate anything when it comes out.

I'm not saying the game is bad, I'm saying the DRM is bad. That is all I'm saying is bad.

[Madous]

You see, that is a sensible thing to say. You picked out one specific part that you don't agree with. That's totally fine.

The people who say the entire game is bad because of the DRM and the DRM alone are the unintelligent ones.

[wkw427]

In the case where the DRM would make them not buy the game, that viewpoint is justified.

For me, anno 2070 was bad because of the DRM, and later, because of the DRM and because there is TWENTY ****ING DOLLARS worth of DLC for it.

[The Colonel]

And before you ask why DRM would keep you from buying a good game...

Ever heard of Ubisoft?

[Madous]

I wasn't going to ask that - I know the examples. Blizzard's DRM is different in that it is hooked up to your Battle.net account. I could install my copy of Diablo III onto a thousand computers, given that I can log in on all of them. Frankly the only DRM that I find to be annoying are the ones that limit the amount of installations or region locking, or things of that nature.

[AndyNPC]

Here's an example of just how much Online DRM can effect the single player game. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaGbJ7iUaak) If you have a bad connection, you can't play this game at all. Quality of the game itself is subjective, but this is objectively bad.

[Madous]

Any game that has any kind of connectivity will lag. Personally I haven't run into a single lag or connection problem whatsoever in my 20+ hours of playing.

[The Colonel]

OK. And what about me? My connection lags all the time, if I bought this game wanting a singleplayer experience so I didn't have to deal with lag, I would be ****ing pissed.

[Madous]

If you bought Diablo for a single player experience, I would be pretty confused.

[wkw427]

Any game that has any kind of connectivity will lag. Personally I haven't run into a single lag or connection problem whatsoever in my 20+ hours of playing.

Yes, for multiplayer that is acceptable. For singleplayer, unacceptable.
If you bought Diablo for a single player experience, I would be pretty confused.

Then why did they add a single palyer mode?

[AndyNPC]

If you bought Diablo for a single player experience, I would be pretty confused.

Take a look back at the video I posted. Do you think he chose to have a poor connection to the Blizzard servers? He was forced to play single-player because of it, and even that was unplayable. I should also add that there is no LAN option either. If you want to play an organized game with a few friends you'd have to do it over the Blizzard servers.

The online DRM has not improved the enjoyment of this game for anyone. I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could be defending this.

[The Colonel]

If you bought Diablo for a single player experience, I would be pretty confused.

Just because you don't like single player doesn't mean other people don't like it.

[Adam]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5743-You-Should-Be-Mad-at-Diablo-IIIs-Always-Online-DRM?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=news

[wkw427]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5743-You-Should-Be-Mad-at-Diablo-IIIs-Always-Online-DRM?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=news

He can have my babies

[The Colonel]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5743-You-Should-Be-Mad-at-Diablo-IIIs-Always-Online-DRM?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=news

You know, I normally don't agree with this guy. But he is so ****ing right in that one video, I swear.

[DementedSun]

Everything that guy says, yes, yes.

I was actually sort of interested in it, but I'm not going to bother because I'd likely be playing on my laptop where I either don't have an internet connection, or I have one that cuts off frequently, so no thank you.