It's the biggest thing in the world at the moment, and despite all the Error 37 memes, jokes and tears, anyone actually getting into Diablo III is having fun, and if they're not then, well, they can always go back and play Diablo II.
We've dabbled in the game since release though, and while many of Blizzard's decisions regarding skills, abilities, UI and more have polarised the Diablo community, we think a lot of it is for the better, as we explore in today's extensive review. As a rewarding experience, always-online requirement aside, there's not much that offers the length of replayability as Diablo III does making the game, in our opinion, well worth your investment.
You guys always mention bad voice acting on your reviews as cons. What is an example of a game you felt had good voice acting?
I'm seriously not trying to troll here - I've played a few games you have reviewd and said has had bad voice acting and I honestly don't understand what makes good or bad voice acting.
To me voice acting just saves you from having to read a massive chunk of text. I don't really take anymore more then that from it.
Personally I feel 9.2 is too high for D3. They didn't re-invent anything with it.
Is it possible to play LAN? I realise you have to connect to Blizzard for account control or DRM or whatever, but once done with that can you play on LAN?
D3 is more like an 8, maybe a 7.5. But they've injected Heroin in it so even though it's not great, it forces you to keep going back. Kinda like The Sims.
It's basically the same storyline and campaign as D1 and D2, but with updated graphics.
Have any opening week sales figures been released yet?
Is it possible to play LAN? I realise you have to connect to Blizzard for account control or DRM or whatever, but once done with that can you play on LAN?
d3 will not run without an internet connection.
it's not like steam where you can connect and it allows you to play offline for upt to 3 more days.
there is no LAN play, only internet. both you and your lan buddy would need internet to both play together.
7 /10 Personally. It's ok. Soundtrack is great and the cinematics are cool. DRM hurts it for me and the dumbed down feel of the game. It's ready for a console port.
That rock paper shotgun review is awful. The comments he makes are so common that he could have just spoken to an internet troll and copied them down. He goes so little to justify his complaints.
I disagree with anyone who says it's a 'dumbed' down game. There may be less decisions in some areas, but the skill combinations and the rune combinations are crazy. There are so so many viable builds, builds that you will change constantly and tweak constantly it's crazy. Unlike D2 where you had a small handful of cookie cutter builds, and anything else was just pointless.
Diablo III is better in virtually every way to Diablo II - and that's a mean feat in itself.
PS - Maybe I'm enjoying D3 a shit load more because I'm playing with 3 mates 90% of the time instead of single player.
The major thing that shits me about D3 is not enough random maps. There seems to be far too many non randomised areas in the game for my liking. I'd say maybe only 1/2 the game is different each time you play. I don't know why they needed to have so many static areas when the first 2 worked so well without them. Sure have some areas pre-designed (hell even D1 had a few places that never changed) but cmon guys, you pretty much invented the randomised dungeon/area deal with games but then seemingly abandoned it for half this game.
Heh the Diablo games weren't as random as you think, they just rotated a few map versions 90 degrees and plonked in random elite mobs so it felt different each play. Sneaky.
Most of the dungeons in D3 are still pretty random, and have that diablo random hallways and rooms feel to it. tbh I like the mix? The generated areas by their nature feel canned, having some hand-crafted scenes in the mix feels good to me anyway.
I certainly don't know the way to find the next objective which I think I'd learn after 5-6+ playthroughs of some of the content. A lot of the scripted events just won't work without a set block of terrain.
I think I've clocked 50 hours in 6 nights somehow. I may have a problem...
7-8/10 for me too.
rock paper shotgun review raises valid points imo.
But most of his points are the broken launch which is calming down, and shit like this:
I think I’ve died four times thus far, playing solo, and try as I might can find no way to increase the difficulty to anything halfway interesting. I mean, I’ve 87 health potions in my inventory – what are they even for? The game drops so much health in every fight that it’s mostly impossible to get hurt.
He just hasn't played through enough if this is his honest opinion. IMO a 'full' play off Diablo that critiques the difficulty for a serious gamer should finish with the Hell completion.
I think for every game review their should be a disclaimer at the top as to 1) Whether or not the game was provided by the publisher, and 2) How far into the game the person got when they made the review.
Question 2 is pretty important especially for a game like Diablo III.
As far as the dumbed down comment. Dumbed down because you can't put in skill points or attribute points? Would you prefer that you can put in those points and then respec? Or would you prefer they were locked in like D2 was originally. What value do you get from that process that you couldn't get from item choices, runes and skill combinations from the current system.
Mass Effect 2 was 'dumbed' down over Mass Effect 1 - but was a much much better game for it.
Just for a start, things like not having elective mode and advanced tool tips turned on by default is the definition of dumbed down.
You're focusing solely on the skill system which I agree is one of the games strong points.
And the game IS too easy. Blizzard claimed it would take players months to beat inferno and it was done in less than a week. That aside, you shouldn't have to put in 60 hours to the game just to get to a level where the game is challenging.
How long is it taking the average player to beat Inferno? Just because some poop socking spergs finished it in a week by using every exploit in the book and not actually taking in the game's story properly doesn't mean Blizzard didn't live up to their one month promise.
I don't think it's that great to be honest. They removed a lot of elements from the game and at this point I much prefer the previous games (I'm nearing the end of Act II).
I'm about 20 hours in, and I'm up to Act 2 in nightmare. I go through periods where I just make a bee-line to the exit, and periods of exploring every nook and cranny of a dungeon.
Just for a start, things like not having elective mode and advanced tool tips turned on by default is the definition of dumbed down.
If it wasn't there then I would agree with you, but it's a freakin' option dude. Sheesh.
As far as the difficulty. Normal mode is pretty easy, but I'm sure there are some newbies that have found it a challenge. To me it's more about just introducing you to the game, and letting you experience the story.
For me, I had to play differently in nightmare becuase I could die. We had to work as a team more - instead of going off in 2s we actually stuck together most of the time.
I'm not in hell but I cannot comment on that.
I wouldn't base the difficulty of a game on how quickly a crazy insane professional group of people got through Inferno. I've played for probably 30 hours and I'm in nightmare act 3 and still enjoying it.
For me the game isn't about progression of content, it's about progression of gear!!
Ahh so if I don't defend it to the death I'm a hater, hoggy?
There's plenty to like about it and I had fun playing to the end of nightmare but it is far from perfect and certainly not free from criticism.
There is currently a severe bug with Monk's Quickening rune on Fists of Thunder, where it gives a huge amount of spirit generation compared to what I presume is intended. You can actually solo Hell/Inferno with this build http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5149537586
Really, this game deserves the 9.2. It has done well, and upon my initial complaints of DRM and the lag, it seems to have calmed down and are more enjoyable. No review like RPS should focus simply on just the launch. I mean he has fair points, the online-DRM is annoying, and should not be here. But Blizzard chose to put in a Real Money Auction House, and so have to protect it from hacks/dupes that plagued D1 and D2.
Regarding the story, some of it is predictable. I mean Spoiler: Belial being the prince was easily foreseeable but that was just how simple the writing was. However there were parts that really wowed me, and were heaps of fun. Also the voice actor for the jeweller is the Emperors' Assistant from Mulan which was really cool.
Doesn't seem dumbed down to me, seems like theres way more viable builds and ways to play it than D2, even without elective mode turned on. I think some people confuse "dumbed down" with "streamlined".
But yeah, some of the voice acting is really cheesy, some of the villains come accross as so b-grade I expect them to be twirling pencil moustaches while they talk. Like Magdha in act 1 with her "While you were here, I went and kidnapped all your friends and stole all the pieces of the sword, AHA!" speech.
Though, I love the guy who when you walk into new tristam goes "I promised Markus I'd protect him, and NOW HES DEAD", makes me laugh every time, the way he delivers that line.
Doesn't seem dumbed down to me, seems like theres way more viable builds and ways to play it than D2, even without elective mode turned on. I think some people confuse "dumbed down" with "streamlined".
I agree with this, when I first leveled up I was shocked and worried that I couldn't change my attributes and I only have one new skill to learn from one tree and I was very hesitant with the game. As I've leveled up I've come to love the new system it's easy to use and I spend more time playing the game then trying to come up with the 'perfect' build, I love the new system and I love changing my moves around depending on the area.
I change to AOE/Splash damage in some areas and use Fury attack when Mobs are coming at me one at a time.
Definitely not a 10/10 whilst not bringing anything completely new to the genre Blizzard have done a bloody fantastic job bringing Diablo into the modern era, and I'm loving every minute of D3.
why is only the voice acting mentioned when the writing in general is the worst i've seen in any game that hadn't been just translated into english by a overworked chinese rent boy who resented the task.
A single player game that has a 300-500 ping.
Or a lan game with 300-500 ping.
9.2 ?
Even playing with mates in Australia anything over 150 should be unacceptable.
It's good, but not 9 good imo.
Then again SWTOR wasn't 9.5 good either.
And I think this is better than SWTOR... Perhaps you should stop putting metrics on your "ratings".
I do miss D2's skill tree system, it was the only thing that kept me playing for a long time.
What was so good about the skill tree? Having to spend points in skills you didn't give a shit about to get to the ones you wanted? And its not like it was really offering more choice, since there was only a few viable cookie cutter ways you'd end up spending your points anyway, and if you did anything else you were essentially gimping yourself. So essentially all they've done away with is the mechanical act of clicking boxes and spending points when you level up, which is just worthless cruft anyway. In other words, they streamlined it.
I find it much more fun to level up and get new skills and new runes to play with than level up and go "Oh yay I levelled up.... time to spend my points on these skills I don't really want so that at some point in the future I'll be able to buy a skill thats actually fun".
Each to their own I guess, but I think the people pining for the days of spending points D2 style are sporting a serious pair of rose coloured glasses.
My only gripe with D3 is the loot system. seriously, I have a level 22 DH, level 27 Wizard and a Level 12 HC Monk.
the Monk I'm trying to keep ahead of the dungeon curve in terms of gear using the AH for obvious reasons.
My wizard I decked out in AH gear and does 540 DPS, which previously before the AH gear it was ~150 something, from 2-3player games and loot drop.
My 22 DH I just put a few items on from AH, he was still in a level 9 chestpiece - he is/was used for 4 player games where loot was being shared and nothing had dropped that was better than that level 9 piece.
The gear that drops doesn't follow the levelling which is meh, and even if you werent lucky enough to get something to drop. In previous diablo's at least a merchant would have a not so great item for you for your approximately level but would still sh*t on that level 9 item you still have to use.
tldr; I don't like having to use the AH to upgrade out of level 9 gear 20 levels later.
I do miss D2's skill tree system, it was the only thing that kept me playing for a long time
lol fucking trolling or what?
everything khel said, it was a restrictive system. it was good for its time but the new system is better in everyway. i love the fact i can use any of the skills and try them all.
i am pretty sure there were skills in diablo 2 that i never used or cared to try ever in the all the years i played it because they werent relevant
i would love to hear why you thought that skill system was so good
The ping can become pretty horrible at times, last night I was sitting on around 400-500 and I've just started a HC char. They should really make some local servers for Australians. Especially given how much money they'll be making from this game.
The story is pretty meh. It starts off pretty awesome, but it just ends in a very unsatisfying. Spoiler: Diablo himself looks shithouse too. It builds up to be something awesome, and it just ends without any real decent climax.
Sound is good. Love some of the music, the environments are great, the graphics are less than I was expecting.
Yeah I think they could've put a bit more work into the textures. the lighting is nice and the atmosphere is there, but even some of WoW's textures are a lot better.
That's really my only gripe aside from the launch teething issues, I fucking love it.
I don't see why Diablo 3 has been chosen to be the whipping boy for this, is it just because its different to what D2 offered or something? Because I can't honestly remember the last multiplayer game I played that had an offline mode. MMOs like WoW and Star Wars and Guild Wars and Tera involve being online, Mass Effect 3's multiplayer was online only, Battlefield 3 was online only, Starcraft 2 requires you to be online, games like Dota2 or LoL or HoN are played online, and thats just off the top of my head.
Yet D3 is the one people have decided they're going to blame and spout off rhetoric about how its the worst thing thats ever happened in gaming. I don't really get it.
I mean sure, its fucking annoying when you can't play it, I'm certainly not happy with the state of affairs tonight for example, but its not different than any number of other games I've played over the past few years, so I don't get why D3 is being so viciously singled out as the poster child for this DRM revolution.
Khel I believe it is more the idea that they offer singleplayer, yet you can't actually play it without an internet connection, which kind of muddles what singelplayer stands for.
Those titles you listed can all be played without an internet connection (except for the MMO's, but that kind of goes with the genre), which you can still enjoy the campaign. The real flaw for Diablo 3 is being shown right now with an 8 hour maintenance and no one can actually play the game that they paid for. Yes it is understandable that multiplayer is unavailable as that requires servers to connect, but my singleplayer experience isn't being allowed by Blizzard.
My opinion to why Blizzard did this isn't "conveinence" for the user, but more so a protection on their front. A real money based auction house requires security, so they had to place an online requirement. However if they had of just offered a offline singleplayer that didn't allow you to transfer anything to co-op, it would have been perfect. Sure some people would have complained that they spent so much time playing singleplayer that they want those legendaries to be transferred, but they would be a minority.
Is Diablo 3 now a lite version of an MMO? Because that is what it feels like to me, because I can't actually access my game unless the servers are up.
Khel I agree with what you are saying except for the fact that Blizzard just has not sold it well.
They're trying for everyone to have a 'fair and equitable experience' with Diablo 3. The reality is they fucked it up completely by not providing us with a locally hosted server.
What's it going to be like when PvP is introduced and all of a sudden someone from Aus is against someone in the US? Is that fair and equitable when the guy in the US just puts on his lolface because you and your 400+ ping (or even if you get 200 on a good day) cannot hope to compete.
Much like in the video on 'The Escapist', we've been served up a pile of shit with the DRM aspect and are also being told to say 'yum, yum'.
Oh yeah, I don't disagree they've fucked it up, inexplicably they've fucked it up when they have SO much experience running online games. I agree with what the guy was saying in that video with regards to Blizzard letting everyone down by building a game where you have to play online, then fucking up the service. I've got no problems playing it online, I'll happily play it online, if they'll provide me with a service that actually works and/or is actually up when I want to play...
Blizzard always seem to underestimate the demand for their games and seemingly because of that, they crash under the load and are unstable as hell for the first week or 2 of a new launch. Every after all this time they still run into this problem every time a new WoW xpac or major content patch comes out.
Its a shame that they feel the need to provide this online only model which imo is only to combat piracy as there is no way in hell you can argue that it provides better security to single players. Also how well would this model work if there was more serious competition to Blizzard? I mean, they would be losing customers by the tanker load right now.
Heh, first people are complaining its too different from D2 now they're complaining its too much the same? Make up your mind!
Differen't people shouldn't always converge their ideas. Nazi's did. Did they make the right choice?
On an aside; this isn't an MMO khel. Torchlight doesn't require full online play.
Have you never complained about a game needing full online connectivity just to continue your single player game? What about those GFWL ones? or Ubisoft killing saves and disconnecting people when their own service was interrupted?
If you look at the differences between d1 and d2 and in the time frame it took, they really did go leaps and bounds.
D2 to D3 almost seems like an expansion pack to me...
It took the Blizzard North team four years to come out with Diablo 2. When it did come out it was also plagued with shitty bugs and worst of all it looked like crap. It really wasn't all that innovative until the 1.10 patch came out and they really started introducing variety in to the game. The only problem after that was that it still looked like shit.
I'm glad that Torchlight 2 is coming out this year. It stands to win a big portion of the disgruntled from Blizzard unless they pull a rabbit out of the hat. Especially if it provides us with the gaming experience that Diablo 3 should have been.
Have you never complained about a game needing full online connectivity just to continue your single player game? What about those GFWL ones? or Ubisoft killing saves and disconnecting people when their own service was interrupted?
My point wasn't really that its a good thing or a bad thing, its more that everyone is acting like D3 is somehow doing something new and breaking gamer trust in some kind of new way when its really not. I just find it odd people are focusing on that aspect, when the same thing has already been happening for years.
I guess there was a bit of crying when Starcraft 2 came out and required an internet connection, but there seems to be exponentially more crying going on over D3 doing the same thing, and thats what confuses me, that people act like they were somehow taken unawares by this development.
Probably because people didn't expect it to be as bad as this. When I heard it was a constant connection I thought you would have it just sitting in the background minding its own business. I also expected it to be playable whenever but we know how that is going.
I guess there was a bit of crying when Starcraft 2 came out and required an internet connection, but there seems to be exponentially more crying going on over D3 doing the same thing,
This has been down every day, except for monday, or sunday american time.
khel ... I couldn't play my single player toon tonight because of patch to wow ...
Defend that ?
Here's hint. You can't. (quick typo defend khel)
If it's any consolation Obes, I'll never play this game
Not really, you bitch about a lack of skill in Diablo and too much clicking. Which really translates to I can no longer rely on reflexs and an instant hit infinite distance instant kill weapon to be ok.
You miss my point.
Your review scores are almost a measure of the reviewers "hype"-o-meter.
Your metrics are shit house. If SWOT was a 9.5, then this must be significantly higher (ie. you gave a game that wasn't even being released here a 9.5! and when it was, was regionally priced), so lets say 9.9. Which then means some really shitty game like hello kitty online mmo must be a 9.0.
Yet you gave Torchlight 7.5, and in single player mode torchlight is probably a better game than d3. Torchlight is was not regionally priced, was about a third to a quarter the price and had a similar number of hours of game play. Only difference being 3 classes vs. 5.
This is constructive long term feedback. If all you give is a rating of the reviewers hype for a game you long term you will lack credibility (clicks/views) and thus marketability.
A good review would say the compare it to d2.
Better :
+++++ graphics, yay for not being 800*600
+ a new storyline
+ some new buttons to click (lots)
About the same
= the ammount of clicking
Worse :
---------------- Single player. Forced patch times, pings for single player (yes really). Some events are very difficult solo but trivial multiplayer and vice versa (ie. poor balancing of mechanics of companions).
--- Music, It's just not as good D2. It still pretty awesome, but they had what 11 years and it isn't as good.
-- Multiplayer, previous with peer to peer, when playing with other aussie your ping was ok, but now you are on the other side of the planet on an overcrowded server. You numerous clicks take 300 (if you are lucky) to 600 ms to occur.
Is it a 9.something... No
If you like diablo are are a diehard Blizard apologist (khel) then yes buy it.
If you didn't dig d2 then this game is in many aspect other then graphics, not as good... don't buy it.
Never played d2 ?
How bout Torchlight ? enjoyed it ? then sure.
Other isometric pseudoRPGs eg. Dragon age/Neverwinter .. then sure buy it.
But if you say no and no then this game is at best a 5.
Just remember you gave Torchlight a 7.5.
So if you compare it to Torchlight the review at best is going to be with in .5 of torchlight.
Don't get me wrong, I'll play the shit out of this but it's not a 9.something
(I played the shit out of torchlight).
khel ... I couldn't play my single player toon tonight because of patch to wow ...
Defend that ?
Yeah, its shit, theres no defending it. But then theres no single player in d3 anyway, so thats just muddying up the issue. The server issues tonight though have pretty much exhausted my patience, I'm starting to get annoyed with Blizzard now, they really need to sort their shit out.
Realistically you could technically compare this to being like duke nukem forever was like to duke nukem.
It was an iterative, yet uninspired game. However that doesn't detract from the fun of clicking along with friends.
This game is far from deep which is both it's charm and curse. Being able to solve problems mostly through bruteforce is plenty fine for a game like this. It's not wrong, but it doesn't need to have a good review to justify how a heavy investment of time has mad a large playerbase happy.
I think this demolishes torchlight on the depth of skills alone, but then again i didn't spend that much time in torchlight (i only bought it at release because it seemed like a good idea but i quickly lost interest without the interactivity of playing with other people).
But that's just the thing, what i think and see might not be what the reviewer thinks and sees. Plus tbh i'm not exactly here for the reviews.
TL;DR: even though i do really like playing this game, i believe that it shouldn't get a super good review.
Jesus Obes, settle down. A review is one person's opinion of a game and that person was a different person to those that reviewed the other games you mentioned. Yes, we have general metrics, but people have different opinions.
For example, had I have reviewed Diablo 3 for AusGamers, based on my current progress, there would be something in the area of 7.5 in that box. As a long term PC gamer and big fan of the original Diablo and Diablo 2, D3 falls short of expectations in many ways for me (for many of the reasons others have already outlined) and I'm presently struggling to find the enthusiasm to make it through Act IV.
But you need to remember that Steve comes from a different gaming heritage to many of the oldschool of this forum. While we were carting out PCs around back in the early 00s, he was writing for Nintendo mags, and these days still does the vast majority of his gaming on consoles.
Now I'm not saying that his opinion is invalid, because it isn't, it just comes from a different perspective as you or I.
Fact is that there are many out there for whom Diablo 3 is well and truly a 9.2 game, those who are unfazed by the DRM-garbage and probably don't even notice the latency or care about the shallow loot or cringeworthy dialogue.
Imo, when considering a review on any site (for any medium really), before criticising the article's overall conclusion, you need to consider the reviewers reasoning and think about how closely their preferences might align with your own. Some reviews can be more objective, often describing what type of players might like aspects and how others may hate that, but most are purely the subjective view of the writer -- who's tastes are not always going to align with your own.
Even after all these years, people still don't get what review scores are intended to represent. Maybe one day you'll get it, I live in hope of that day.
But you need to remember that Steve comes from a different gaming heritage to many of the oldschool of this forum. While we were carting out PCs around back in the early 00s, he was writing for Nintendo mags, and these days still does the vast majority of his gaming on consoles.
Begs the question though ... why not get a Diablo enthusiast to review this game? Its not like Madden IX, this is fucken Diablo III, a bazillion years in the making!
A couple of days ago I would have given this a 9+ as I had a pretty good run lag-wise, and don't agree with a lot of the criticisms around loot / skills / story / dialogue etc. All things being equal (and if the service actually was solid) I don't care about the online-only shit, but last night's maintenance with no fucking warning or post on the forum for that purpose (!) is making me start to agree with Obes, which is making me want to /neck.
Remember it's only been out for 1 week so I wouldn't get too worked up over the random restarts/shutdowns. I didn't start playing WoW until a year after release and there were still huge lag issues even then making the game unplayable at times.
Not really, you bitch about a lack of skill in Diablo and too much clicking.
I don't like Diablo, or games like it, simply because I don't like RPGs. I watch people in the office playing D3 and I would give it a zero, no questions asked, because for me it looks utterly uninteresting.
You miss my point.
No, I just think it's tired and silly and not backed up by the evidence that comes from your own mouth. (Like every other time we go through this boring conversation when someone has a completely trivial level of disagreement with a score we gave. )
Games are subjective - deal with it. Are you going to get sad because I said I'd give it a zero? We're within 2 points of the metacritic average; it's not like we're miles off here.
All the people that are bitching about D3 "only being a 7 or an 8" have probably already dumped more hours into it than half the other games they're going to play this year and it's only been out for a week! To me that is a sign of greatness; the sort of greatness in games development that Blizzard are renowned for.
In all seriousness - if you have other games that you would rate a 9 and you think D3 is lesser than them - why the hell are you still playing D3 and why are you going to keep "playing the shit out of it"?
The reality is the +/- one or two point disagreement you have on the score is not enough to stop you from wanting to play the shit out of it, to the point where you are ignoring other games in preference of playing Diablo 3. You can bitch about the problems with it, but at the end of the day you are choosing it over other games - which to me is the only way to measure how much you really believe in the score that you're giving!
A couple of days ago I would have given this a 9+ as I had a pretty good run lag-wise, and don't agree with a lot of the criticisms around loot / skills / story / dialogue etc. All things being equal (and if the service actually was solid) I don't care about the online-only shit, but last night's maintenance with no fucking warning or post on the forum for that purpose (!) is making me start to agree with Obes, which is making me want to /neck.
This is, IMO, /the/ problem with scoring games today. You are taking a score at a single snapshot after a relatively brief gaming experience (brief compared to the lifespan of the game).
Games are practically living organisms now, changing on a day to day basis as they are updated and as the experience changed. I can understand people wanting to drop points off a Diablo 3 score based on the first 24 hours of their experience with the game - they probably only got a few hours of gameplay, and got to stare at error screens the rest of the time.
How do you factor that into a review? It is really hard, because when the game works, it is (as I understand it, from people who like that sort of thing) generally really fun. And you can only assume it is going to bet better and more fun and more stable as it gets mature.
Starcraft 2 also falls in the same bucket as diablo 3.....10 years too late for a very unimaginative sequel.
I never played SC1, but I'd probably give SC2 a high 9 score. I've spent more time playing that than anything else since its release, and I've barely scratched the surface of what it has to offer (so many mods, etc). I simply don't have enough time to play it more.
Only thing I can complain about is I have no power to ban some of the dribbling morons from ever being in any of my games again. Like the guys who complain about your gameplay and do nothing of value the whole game and end up with the lowest score and then msg you about what a noob you are. WTF?
This is, IMO, /the/ problem with scoring games today. You are taking a score at a single snapshot after a relatively brief gaming experience (brief compared to the lifespan of the game).
Yup.
So DRM/lag aside can someone tell me.... What amazing leap in gameplay did d3 bring to the table that is holding everyone's attention?
Your premise is flawed, its not innovation that is holding people's attention.
Well wasn't it innovation that brought us these awesome genres of games in the first place? If ppl settled for the same types of games we'd probably all still be playing chess?
Well wasn't it innovation that brought us these awesome genres of games in the first place? If ppl settled for the same types of games we'd probably all still be playing chess?
Begs the question though ... why not get a Diablo enthusiast to review this game? Its not like Madden IX, this is fucken Diablo III, a bazillion years in the making!
This is a fair question, as often we do like to get the most authoritative person that we can to review a given game. But in this particular case, I genuinely feel that Steve's perspective as more of the broader-spectrum gamer is every bit as worthwhile as that of a diehard keyboard and mouse gamer with an encyclopedic ARPG knowledge.
D3 may be a long-awaited t sequel a bazillion years in the making, but it's also a tentpole title that is attracting a far wider audience than its predecessors.
Games are practically living organisms now, changing on a day to day basis as they are updated and as the experience changed. I can understand people wanting to drop points off a Diablo 3 score based on the first 24 hours of their experience with the game - they probably only got a few hours of gameplay, and got to stare at error screens the rest of the time.
How do you factor that into a review? It is really hard, because when the game works, it is (as I understand it, from people who like that sort of thing) generally really fun. And you can only assume it is going to bet better and more fun and more stable as it gets mature.
The problem is reviews are generally based off of the game right out of the box or straight off the shelf. Issues like the ones Diablo III are having shouldn't have seen the light of day. I do agree with you that the game does change drastically (mostly for the better) in time and the games life cycle however it shouldn't have to be that way. If I buy my game (or preorder) I expect it to be working near perfectly from day 1.
They have no excuses for this game having any problems, they had years and years to work on it and should have made it as spot on as they could have from day 1 I agree with someone who said it is a very underwhelming game and Dan struggling to find enthusiasm to complete act IV.
Maybe you guys should do a flashback review section for the site, re-reviewing a game one year down the track to see how much it has changed or evolved?
Like the guys who complain about your gameplay and do nothing of value the whole game and end up with the lowest score and then msg you about what a noob you are. WTF?
Haha yeah, tell me about it. Why do those retards think that abusing people privately after the game is the way to go? It is shocking to see how many (bad) players do that.
Maybe you guys should do a flashback review section for the site, re-reviewing a game one year down the track to see how much it has changed or evolved?
That is a great idea and would definitely love to do that. I think there are a lot of games that get huge value adds after launch that many people probably never find out about it, because they dropped the game shortly after finishing it and never bothered going back because other things took priority (another reason why I only ever really bother playing multiplayer games).
Games are practically living organisms now, changing on a day to day basis as they are updated and as the experience changed. I can understand people wanting to drop points off a Diablo 3 score based on the first 24 hours of their experience with the game - they probably only got a few hours of gameplay, and got to stare at error screens the rest of the time.
As I said before, I think it would be really useful to have a small blurb at the top of every review which stated 1) Whether or not the game was supplied by the published for free, or purchased, and 2) How long the game was played for, was it completed etc etc.
Then you can make a better judgement on the overall review.
I'm torn about the review for Diablo III. I think it's a fantastic game, I really do, and I'm really enjoying it. On the flip side though I understand what people are saying about the always on, and how painful the whole experience has been for many over the last week. I don't believe it should affect the overall score though. The launch has been painful, but it's pretty daft to believe Blizzard won't fix it going forward - the same way WOW was paiful and then got sorted. So therefore basing a score on a week or two of post launch pain is short sighted.
As I said before, I think it would be really useful to have a small blurb at the top of every review which stated 1) Whether or not the game was supplied by the published for free, or purchased, and 2) How long the game was played for, was it completed etc etc.
1) is not really relevant.
In general all the games are provided for free, but that in no way has anything to do with the score. It's probably just as hard to convince anyone that this is the case, but from our side of the fence, we have boxes of games and CD keys for review purposes arriving every single day. We get far more free games than we can possibly ever review. It's just something that we take for granted now and it would never cross our mind that there's another state of affairs, except in the rare cases where there's a problem with our review copy and we just buy it on Steam or whatever. Whether we pay for a game or not makes no difference.
If you want to look for things that might actually matter, asking whether we got an ad campaign for that title would be where I'd look. But our editorial and our advertising are two completely different "departments" and they always have, and always will have, nothing to do with each other. We've had campaigns for games that we've given crap scores, and (more often) we've had no campaigns for games that we've given great scores.
2) is sort of interesting but it's also a tough thing in big open ended games. In this case you can figure out how long the game was paid for because our D3 playing experience started with everyone else's - so it had a good 5 solid days of gameplay.
That might be an interesting metric but realistically I think the depth of the reviews that we do should be enough for people to tell how much time we spent playing the game.
diesel, maybe you should go back and play d2 again if you don't think there has been any changes, just to refresh your memory, because it sounds like you're remembering things wrong.
Blizzard games have very rarely been 'revolutionary' they've always been 'evolutionary'. Their whole design process mirrors that too with the whole iterative process to their games.
A great game that is revolutionary and innnovate is something special, it's fantastic and if it matches up well and it's not just a simple gimmick it has the potential to be fucking awesome. That being said do you have to be innovative and revolutionary to make a good game? I don't think so, and I think you'll find that most of the reviews for games seem to indicate that too.
One of my game design teachers at TAFE said it well, "Don't redesign the wheel, it is already there and working. Instead add onto it, make it more functional and more practical."
My "claim" is that the amount of time taken in relation to the small amount of innovation that d3 brings is very disappointing.
I wouldn't rate it in the 9. range. Why? Because I'd reserve that for ground breaking/ revolutionary games.
blizzard has shown that you can still keep within the genre yet innovate/advance with each sequel and within decent time frames. I.e the warcraft series.
When I had sex with your mum the first time, it was pretty good (maybe an 8), the second time was a little better as she wasn't so nervous and opened herself up a little more and became a little more adventurous (a 9), the third time was just like the second, good, but there wasn't anything new so I gave her a 7 and sent her packing. If she wanted a nine or hell even a ten she should have shat on my chest and begged for a golden shower or its just not innovative and interesting. Your Dad didn't mind though and gave her consistently high scores for the same missionary and occasional blowjob she gave over the years.
And thus quake 4 was born... Whatever happened to that game? Does anyone play it?
So what would you consider an innovative game? Because I'm thinking back over all the games I've enjoyed over the last few months and I wouldn't really say any of them were particularly innovative, but they were still a lot of fun and great games. ME3 was great but wasn't really any massive innovative improvement over previous games in the series, Skyrim was a lot of fun but didn't do anything particularly new or different, Battlefield 3 is great but doesn't do anything previous entries in the series haven't done, Uncharted 3 was great but wasn't really mechanically any different to Uncharted 2, and on and on the list goes.
What makes these games so good? Its the content, and its the fact that even if their mechanics aren't ground-breakingly innovative, they're solid and they're fun and they work well. Sure you get the occasional game like Journey that really breaks the mould, and they're awesome too, but not every game has to be that to be a good game.
I don't believe it should affect the overall score though. The launch has been painful, but it's pretty daft to believe Blizzard won't fix it going forward - the same way WOW was paiful and then got sorted. So therefore basing a score on a week or two of post launch pain is short sighted.
wow, just wow. reviewers should never speculate on what a game could be and give it a score based on that. all games should be judged on their quality at release.
haha maybe publishers should give out free crystal balls to reviewers to show them what the game will look like months/years from release.
Go play Fez or Journey if you want innovation, it's what the indies do. When I buy a mainstream big budget game, especially a sequel, I'm generally expecting sophistication and refinement, not new ideas.
Funny how most people are hung up on the number, rather than the review content.
Hopefully they have some patches in the works and hopefully they start documenting them again like they used to, even hotfixes (this really bugs me when they don't). That said, I probably won't buy another blizzard game that doesn't at least attempt to cater to the Australian market.
Not a bad review though, all things considered. I don't agree with the score exactly, but on a 1-10 scale I'd give it around an 8/8.5 so as a rating measuring the game it's not too far off the mark. However, it does seem clear to me that Steve leans more towards the field of a casual gamer/marketing person(sorry!) by the way he's glossed over some of the cons and laid it on a bit thick in praising other things without going too deep into why (talking about the game here, not the service issues that were expected, if unfortunate).
Now don't get me wrong there's nothing at all wrong with that (I have a relative who is actually going to buy a new laptop so they can play this game, and they usually only play call of duties on an xbox), but if you're going to represent Australia's Gaming Community and use language along the lines of What We Like/What We Didn't Like it may not be a bad idea to have a little more input from at least one or two different members of staff or even one or two more objective/informed members of the community? You wouldn't even need to include that in the review itself, Steve does usually do a great job in the reviews, but maybe a small collaborative summary or a collective table of pros/cons+score from those different perspectives.
I think attempting to represent the whole of the community and not just the segment/majority who will most likely buy any new games anyway would be a pretty cool idea. From what I've seen most of the review sites tend to be very polarising in their perspective or target market and you need to check around to get a better idea anyway (especially if you're teetering on the edge of buy/don't buy).
Or not, whatever, just some idle thoughts from a casual observer.
ow, just wow. reviewers should never speculate on what a game could be and give it a score based on that. all games should be judged on their quality at release. haha maybe publishers should give out free crystal balls to reviewers to show them what the game will look like months/years from release.
The issues around server stability and performance are just that. They're not inherient flaws within the game that wont' be overcome. The beta was more stable because there was less demand. We're not talking about something that is going to be fixed in a patch, we're talking about something that will be fixed by better infrastructure. If we all thought like you dude then WOW would have received a 5.0 instead of being GOTY in a number of publications. Every MMO launch would probably receive a 5.0 becuase there are ALWAYS technical/server issues.
The issues around server stability and performance are just that. They're not inherient flaws within the game that wont' be overcome. The beta was more stable because there was less demand. We're not talking about something that is going to be fixed in a patch, we're talking about something that will be fixed by better infrastructure. If we all thought like you dude then WOW would have received a 5.0 instead of being GOTY in a number of publications. Every MMO launch would probably receive a 5.0 becuase there are ALWAYS technical/server issues.last edited by Zapo at 15:18:55 23/May/12
You're missing the point, the game should be reviewed based off of what you get out of the box and off the shelf. If it doesn't work at launch, that's a piss poor effort on Blizzard's end.
Well pretty sure I said from the get go and even in my little "claim" statement that for the amount of TIME we have had to wait in relation to th amount of innovation...
Ie for d3 in its current state would be a decent game had it come out 2 years after d2. Also duke Nukems latest effort would have been ok had it not taken 15 years to make.
Well, it was started at Blizzard North in 2001, and then Blizzard North was closed, and at some time after that it was picked back up by a different team at Blizzard and started again. By the time they showed it in 2008 at the invitational it had been through three versions of the game. Like someone above said, thats just the cost of Blizzard's iterative style, I mean Warcraft 3 took like 8 years after Warcraft 2 as well and Starcraft 2 took ages, thats just how they work.
I'd really like it if ausgamers started used in game screen shots as well as pre-rendered stuff. I hate pre-rendered stuff, they just don't give any idea of how the game feels.
Agreeing with d^. I remember reading (somewhere, maybe penny arcade? maybe SA forums) about how reviews go about doing their job. Some of the bigger ones sites get the game before it even goes gold so it's filled with bugs but they get told that a lot of them will be fixed on launch day/patches in the future. What ends up happening is someone goes through the game thinking Oh that game breaking bug will be fixed on realise date so I will ignore it. Or in the case of D3, reviewers weren't expecting login errors.
A review should be about what you get out of the box, everything from installation to account creation to patching!
How does it matter how long it took for them to make the bloody game? That should have zero influence on the overall score. The only thing that should is the cost, whether it's a budget game for $20 or a normal big game release of $60US etc.
If you were expecting D3 to be revolutionary then you're a tool. Diablo 2 over Diablo 3, I don't know why you would expect that. It doesn't make it any less or more awesome though.
You're missing the point, the game should be reviewed based off of what you get out of the box and off the shelf. If it doesn't work at launch, that's a piss poor effort on Blizzard's end.
that basically means the game should get a zero, for all time, because it was inaccessible on day 1. It would be a short review and it is not indicative of reality.
Well pretty sure I said from the get go and even in my little "claim" statement that for the amount of TIME we have had to wait in relation to th amount of innovation...
Ie for d3 in its current state would be a decent game had it come out 2 years after d2. Also duke Nukems latest effort would have been ok had it not taken 15 years to make.
What sort of computer were you running in 2003 that could handle d3?
arcraft 3 came with the goods though. They added in heros which totally changed the gameplay. Creeps, 4 races. Battle net. Also within wc3 ppl were using the map editors which I assume was more powerful then the Starcraft ones. Cause some amazing shit was done ie dota.
None of that is very innovative or revolutionary, it's all evolutionary. Heroes were in SC for the first time BEFORE War3 - they just iterated on it again for War3. Creeps, yep, that's amazing innovation right there. 4 races, um, adding another race isn't innovation. Map editor, they just kept IMPROVING on what they already had.
They added in heros which totally changed the gameplay.
In D3 they added a completely new skill and runes system which totally changed the gameplay.
Creeps
Fully realised companion characters that have their own story and stay viable to end game, and what the hell, we'll throw crafting in under this too.
4 races.
Five new heroes
Battle net.
Full Battlenet integration, where you can see what your friends are doing, jump into their games at any time, or even see and chat to them while they're playing other blizzard games.
And we haven't even touched on things like the Auction house and Inferno Mode and the huge amount of new content and story present in the game.
So I guess that means Diablo 3 does perform up to your standards after all?
Ok call it what you want. Evolution/revolution/innovation.
The "changes" affected the gameplay in a unique and interesting way. Adding a new layer of skill to the game.
As for the 4 races coming from 2 races (which were prett equal in all respects with the exception of blood lust and heal) IMO was a pretty big step up?
My favourite bit was where he said dota was invented in wc3 using the magical editor, when it was based on the aeon of strife mod made with sc1's editor :)
The "changes" affected the gameplay in a unique and interesting way. Adding a new layer of skill to the game.
Have you played much of d3? This is almost word for word how I would describe the new rune system.
As for the 4 races coming from 2 races (which were prett equal in all respects with the exception of blood lust and heal) IMO was a pretty big step up?
Until you remember that sc1 came first, with 3 unique races. Iteration. Everywhere.
In reality there seems to be only 3 points on any game review sight;
1. 0-5 Crap game not worth playing.
2. 5-7 An OK game, maybe worth playing if it is your thing and you have nothing else at the time
3. 8-10 A great game and almost certainly worth playing. Where exactly it lands in that 8-10 is how much you like that genera and what else of that game type is available.
Look at game reviews like that and it makes much more sense, and seems to work across review sites.
that basically means the game should get a zero, for all time, because it was inaccessible on day 1. It would be a short review and it is not indicative of reality.
No it should not get a 0 but it should get marked down. It should be noted somewhere in the review that they had login issues and also have downtime for servers due to maintenance, thus resulting in a lower score. Then maybe they will rethink the way they implement the game and the infrastructure involved.
Could we just have a player review score added to the reviews. If you have an account for over a certain amount of time with an active participation then you can give it a score.
Maybe you guys should do a flashback review section for the site, re-reviewing a game one year down the track to see how much it has changed or evolved?
That is a great idea and would definitely love to do that. I think there are a lot of games that get huge value adds after launch that many people probably never find out about it, because they dropped the game shortly after finishing it and never bothered going back because other things took priority (another reason why I only ever really bother playing multiplayer games).
--
I was going to say games like Skyrim and Fallout would benefit from a look back after all of the bug fixes and dlc's, but it's a little hard to beat a perfect score.
I usually read the article and make up my own mind about whether the game/movie/song/porno will raise the level of my interest to a state where I amble out of my house on a quest to purchase and trade for said item/s and don't take much stock in the number.
One question kind of unrelated to most of all this and more along with what rev suggests after so lovingly respecting everyone's views, is that i don't understand having a scale of 10 and then diluting it with some kind of extra 9 points after the decimal place?
That's a 100 scale, with a decimal place obscuring the fact that you chose a scale to simplify words into a comparitive between games which also should rate within a range arouond it, but then for some reason, maybe someone decided they liked a game more than one which had a 9 but not worthy of a 10, this simplification suddenly gets 10 times more complicated.
I'm not sure why this near-arbritrary number which represents a pure simplification of the overall feeling from the game is now so complicated. It's obviously spurred on arguments like this one.
Is there some strong reason for it? Or is it that you don't want to dimish the numbers of previous games reviewed when you know one reviewed after is better, but not a 10 as the bar for that is somewhere in infinity (unreachable).
People get caught up in the numbers but the words are what should be differentiating two top end games, not a decimal point. Diablo doesn't compare to Modern warfare because it got 0.5 less of a mark, the entire gameplay is nothing alike, the mechanics are totally disimilar and people who like one can potentially not like the other in a fundamental way; fantasy compared to pesuedo reality.
If i was to offer any suggetion of changing diablo's mark, it'd be to change everything to and maybe even incorporate in, a 10 (not as a perfect number but instead as an objective metric distance where it is a unit of fullfilment higher than a 9). Start rounding up and down some numbers.
I really want to edit a post i just made but i want to go to bed more and it hasn't showed up in the last 5 minutes...
So just to elaborate one tiny bit; when i said that metric bit about fulfilment, in my head i mean things like
-How playable is it? in terms of engaging in a fun way from a mechanical point - games are pressing buttons, different games just press those buttons in different orders (some games, not even that much).
-How engrossing is it? in terms of how close do you feel to the character or storyline. In a FPS the story might not pull you in like a RPG might, but it can feel like you're being shot at. Some games use both elements (mastery of this would be amnesia: the dark descent)
-How does it detract/attract visually (physics, graphics, stylistic designs etc)
-How does it detract/attract audibly (music, effects, voices, etc)
-How long does it play for and how long can it last? Starcraft to it's niche would say 10-15 years (if you're korean) or just ask CS players
-It's other draws unique to the game, it's playerbase, or it's movie or world it's drawn on etc
-Expectations due to marketing/viral/scene hype and how closely did they get matched
Those are things I'd be thinking of when i said fulfilment.
But a benchmark that could be validated could be perhaps more credible than say an arbirtrary number. Either it has to be a validated benchmark to come into literally a few % point of being a "perfect game" or it should in my opinion be an arbritrary number which generically slots a game into a neat spot with the review itself discerning the diferences.
Also the second thing i wanted to edit in was that; I don't expect Ausgamers to change a damn thing from what I say. It's your site, with your reviewers. But it's hard to see where a reviewer is coming from when precise numbers don't seem to add up.
Could we just have a player review score added to the reviews. If you have an account for over a certain amount of time with an active participation then you can give it a score.
This is what I want to do but noone else seems to like the idea :(
This is what I want to do but noone else seems to like the idea :(
That would actually be pretty interesting, and if you limit it to people with say an account older then a year it would stop the something similar to the metacritic user rating scores on a majority of AAA titles. This would give users the option to look at both what the reviewer thought, as well as what the users think as a whole.
Wouldn't a better score be based on the difficulty of the game. Consider that most real life challenges are, take ski'ing slops for example. Diablo 3 should have had a difficulty score rather than just a point system. This would have encouraged a far better debate.
Gamespot and Rotten Tomatoes do 'User' (Player) review scores in addition to their main 'Critic' scores.
Seems a pretty industry standard way of doing it, I'd be in favour of this. Everyone's view is different, the average critic is certainly not on pay with the average viewer.
I find the user scores on sites like Metacritic though to be generally useless. People who don't like it or have an axe to grind about it will deliberately set ridiculously low scores (often 0) to try and screw up the average, while the fanboys on the other end of the scale will set ridiculously high scores to try and skew things in the other direction. How many users are really going to sit down and evaluate the game and give it a meaningful score?
I find the user scores on sites like Metacritic though to be generally useless. People who don't like it or have an axe to grind about it will deliberately set ridiculously low scores (often 0) to try and screw up the average
Why don't they use a median then, rather than an average?
Well I don't know the actual formula they use, but I've seen big games in the past where you'll have huge contingents of people who are like "Raaahh Halo is shit" and get together to spike the user review ratings for it so it'll have a critic average of like 90% and a user average of like 2 out of 10.
And the comments that go with it are equally unhelpful, you've got the guy who gives it 0 with a comment like "Worst game I've ever played, went and got my money back, don't touch this piece of crap" and the guy who gives it 10 and is like "OMG you must play this, its so awesome, PLAY IT NOW".
Just pointless without any sort of context, at least a proper review gives context to its score.
I must be one of a small group who didn't read any reviews about D3. I knew I wanted to play the game and was going to play it no matter what anyone said.
Metacritic scores for general users would only work if very large amounts of people gave their score for the game. Unfortunately what you usually see is highly charged emotional scoring of 0's or 10's with the occasional other number thrown in.
They also need to ditch the first week of a released game. Or better yet, let the viewer of the score move a sliding scale that alters the date from where it calculates the overall score.
I must be one of a small group who didn't read any reviews about D3. I knew I wanted to play the game and was going to play it no matter what anyone said.
Reviews can be quite meaningless. I find the best thing to do is find a reviewer at a site, whether it's here or somewhere else who you agree as much as possible - and then just use them as a guide.
Games, like movies, are heavily influenced by what you like, some people prefer certain genres over others etc. If you can find someone who has similar tastes to you then you're golden.
Personally, when it comes to the big blockbuster 'AAA' titles I know what I want, and what I like. I find reviews more important for smaller indie games where you can find an amazing game without even knowing about. Everyone knew D3 was coming for fucking years, do we need a review to tell us if we should buy it? I used reviews to buy Braid, Limbo and The Binding of Isaac.
Well yeah my emotions about D3 have been on a rollercoaster since day 1. They've mellowed a bit now, and the game has me stuck at least for now. Doesn't mean I would rate it too highly, imo I'm stuck as there isn't much else to play and even if there was I've already invested over 100hrs into D3 so I wouldn't just unstick too easily :\ Not yet anyhow.
PM
WWW
