The RWP

AndyNPC · #1 16th May 2012, 04:09 PM

Are you guys ready for round two of "entitlement"? 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 · #2 16th May 2012, 05:33 PM

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

The Colonel · #3 16th May 2012, 05:37 PM

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

Hey, I'm Grump · #4 16th May 2012, 05:47 PM

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

DarthConker · #5 16th May 2012, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BanjoKun

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 · #6 16th May 2012, 07:02 PM

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

AndyNPC · #7 16th May 2012, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spudfish93

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 · #8 16th May 2012, 07:39 PM

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 · #9 16th May 2012, 07:52 PM

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

I want to kick a puppy now.

IceKeyMaster · #10 17th May 2012, 01:15 AM

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

Articerile · #11 17th May 2012, 01:24 AM

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 · #12 17th May 2012, 01:32 AM

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 · #13 17th May 2012, 01:48 AM

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 · #14 17th May 2012, 09:56 AM

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 · #15 18th May 2012, 03:36 AM

This will be fun

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chilli

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinjonator_Dude

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/bliz...o-iii-servers/