We chat with Blizzard's Tom Chilton on all things World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor
Talking World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor with Tom Chilton
We take the open-world of fictional Kyrat for a spin.
Far Cry 4 Open-World Hands-On Preview
We take on the Dark Lord and his minions in Monolith's epic action-adventure romp
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor Review
We go hands-on with Ubisoft's next Assassin's Creed game, Unity, to see what all the revolution fuss is about
Assassin's Creed: Unity Hands-On Preview
Diablo 3
Diablo 3

PC
Genre: Role Playing Players: 1 (2 to 4 Online)
Developer: Blizzard Entertainment Official Site: http://www.blizzard.com/us/d...
Publisher: Blizzard Entertainment Classification: MA15+
Release Date:
15th May 2012
Diablo 3

Genre: Role Playing
Players: 1 (2 to 4 Online)
Developer: Blizzard Enterta...
Official Site: http://www.blizzard.c...
Publisher: Blizzard Enterta...
Classification: MA15+
Release Date:
15th May 2012
Hide Video Player
Click To View the Diablo 3 Video
Diablo 3 Review
Review By @ 01:34pm 21/05/12
PC
It says a lot that Blizzard are sticking by their “always-online” Diablo III decision. When the game released last week (May 15 for the stragglers out there), the frustration and community outcry that followed from the global introduction to “Error 37” can not be understated. In fact, it’s impossible to ignore seeing as it essentially broke the Internet, but Blizzard being Blizzard has stood by the requirement for an Internet connection to play Diablo III and for anyone who actually managed to stabley get into the game, all the errors in the world could not stop the rekindled, or new, love affair sparked with our new venture into the dark world of Diablo.

So instead of getting all up in arms over an issue that will become a non one in a very short amount of time, let’s look at the game. Diablo III is very much what you expected of it. A throwback to Blizzard’s mammoth action-RPG series that has more loyal followers than the armies of Diablo himself, and one that seems fitting for the modern age. The entry level is just right while maintaining the challenge the team kept promising hardcore fans in the build-up to its release.



Skills and abilities are all easy to manage yet deep to master. Crowd-controlling monsters has never been so much fun. Crafting is a rewarding experience that promotes anti-hoarding, and loot remains one of the driving forces behind each and every carpal tunnel-inducing click. The art-direction is as dark and brooding as the team has been promising for years and jumping online with three friends to take on the Skeleton King, and beyond, couldn’t possibly be any more alluring. It’s Diablo at all the right angles, and there’s nothing, always-online requirement or not, that can change the love that has gone into, and subsequently pours out of, Diablo III.

And yet while familiarity reigns, Diablo III is also vastly superior to the archaic character-managing mess that was Diablo II. Sure, that might sound like troll bait, but in the wake of the ease at which you can play around with abilities, powers and items in Diablo III, its predecessor just feels old and clunky. It might seem like a streamlined and dumb-down system at face value, and I’d venture there are a lot of hardcore Diabloins out there who absolutely hate it, but the deeper you get into the game the more opportunity surfaces to not only experiment with character augmentations, it’s almost a requirement. This then gives a whole new tactical component to the game that wasn’t there before. And now it’s entirely possible to attempt to solo your way through dungeons (with an adventurer by your side) without feeling lost at decisions you’ve made in kitting out your character.

The whole thing reeks of maturity in the design department and I personally welcome the ease of use on-hand. This sleek style of play is likely a wall for many classic Diablo fans, but for all the newcomers out there (and I’m betting there are a lot of you), you should be thankful Blizzard has made getting into the game this easy.



Micro-management is still a strong factor in the game though, don’t get me wrong. And you shouldn’t for a moment think that making it easy to get into game has made the game proper easy as well. As soon as you move on from the beta content Diablo III’s challenge amps up to magnificent levels and the deeper you get into the game, the more appropriate metaphors to descending into hell become. The revamped health system here makes more sense in the wake of the game’s challenge though, as it will slowly regenerate over time or the fallen baddies will drop you some much needed red juice. You can use potions, of course, but unlike in Diablo II where you were drinking them like they were going out of fashion, Diablo III focuses more heavily on keeping your attention on the monsters in front of you.

The above is also just one example of the team’s focus on keeping the player out of menus as much as possible, so as to keep them glued to the clicking task at-hand. Diablo’s cadence has always been about the thick and fast mobs and your handling of them, and here this is paramount to a great gaming experience. Blizzard is renowned for balance in their games and I’d argue that it’s near-perfect in Diablo III as far as combat is concerned. Challenge escalates based on the number of players you have in the game, and the AItastic Followers do a great job playing support to your monstrous advances. Enemy-types vary enough, even early on, that the game always feels fresh and the aforementioned changes to tactical gameplay means you’ll always approach situations, and enemies, in a different way.

This is very different to Diablo II where it was easy to just find an attack that seemed to work for you, and against your enemies, so you used it all the time.



The variation possibilities with Diablo III are vast and engaging, though it’s not all available to you upfront, and you’re required to level up and advance through the game intelligently to get your hands on new abilities, skills and runes. It all unlocks at a satisfying pace too, so the game never feels like you’re just grinding to the next level to unlock whatever it is you want to gain access to. It’s probably the most rewarding system Blizzard has ever produced in regards to pacing.

From a production level the game is a winner, too. Obviously this is Blizzard we’re talking about, and the game’s CG sequences never fail to dislocate jaws, and even though the story isn’t as complex as I’d hoped, it’s delivered at a great pace and with enough bite to keep you wanting to know more. Some of the voice-acting can still grate (Deckard Cain, I’m looking squarely at you), and the dialogue oft fares no better, but for the most part it’s there to contextualise your next heading and does this competently. Art-direction throughout is also top-notch, though I wouldn’t expect anything less from Blizzard where art is concerned, but it is great to see them shedding light on their darker sides.

The game comes with all the appropriate violence, gore and maturity as well. You won’t find any cuddly pandas here, and characterisation keeps the game’s tone quite heavy on the senses (my favourite class, Demon Hunter, specifically could do with a few therapy sessions). This all goes a long way to maintaining the series’ heritage and is likely one of the main factors tiding over the more hardcore elitists out there who feel Blizzard has betrayed them and the franchise’s legacy with so-called “simplified” systems and management. But I digress.



Audio here is also second-to-none, and the game’s score is one of the best in the business. If you managed to score yourself a Collector’s Edition, then you’re the lucky owner of the game’s soundtrack for everyone else, you’re stuck having to just play the game to hear it, but this isn’t a bad thing either.

And that’s a good segue to one of the key features of Diablo III’s future life: replayability. At the end of the day, between 12 and 20 hours should net you a fight with the big man himself, and when the dust settles you, and your character, are rewarded with a new difficulty level to jump into and a host of other unlockables designed to make your next playthrough as varied as the first. It’s in longevity Blizzard has come up trumps with Diablo III, and we haven’t even looked at PvP yet.

It’s difficult to look past the “always-online” component though, because everything I’ve written is void if you can’t get in and play the game, and it’s arguably Diablo III’s biggest downfall. It directly affects your ability to play the game, and while “teething” can be supplemented to the issue, it really shouldn’t have been one in the first place. Getting online and into the game though, rewards players with one of the most engaging single-player and co-op experiences in the business, so if you have patience and can look past Blizzard’s biggest oversight, you’re in for one of the year’s best games.
What we liked
  • Amazingly engaging combat
  • Stellar art-direction
  • Incredible soundtrack
  • Streamlined UI and RPG systems keep you more in the action than out
  • So much replayability
What we didn't like
  • Always-Online requirement
  • Some cheesy voice-acting and dialogue
More
We gave it:
9.2
OUT OF 10
Latest Comments
gamer
Posted 01:55pm 21/5/12
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.

I thought this was a perfect review of D3 - http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/05/18/how-diablo-iiis-solo-experience-reveals-a-hollow-game/#comment-990430
elachlan
Posted 02:03pm 21/5/12
Some of the dialogue is hilarious in some points.

Like the Templar that has a crush on the Enchantress.

Or the vendor in Act II - Who openly says he sells stuff cheap, because he will take it from your body when you die.

The best part is that the dialogue changes based on what character you play and follower you choose. Sticking to the very dynamic feel of Diablo.
jconradr
Posted 02:03pm 21/5/12
Good review, cheers! :) I agree with a 9.2
Winston
Posted 02:11pm 21/5/12
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?
Raven
Posted 02:12pm 21/5/12
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?
gamer
Posted 02:15pm 21/5/12
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.
Hogfather
Posted 02:17pm 21/5/12
It's basically the same storyline and campaign as D1 and D2, but with updated graphics.

What the f***? In what way is the story similar, other than it being about the Sin War and the eponymous Diablo?
Sile
Posted 02:20pm 21/5/12
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.
fpot
Posted 02:25pm 21/5/12
I original Deus Ex had the best voice acting ever.

Zapo
Posted 02:32pm 21/5/12
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 s*** load more because I'm playing with 3 mates 90% of the time instead of single player.

last edited by Zapo at 14:32:46 21/May/12
DM
Posted 02:36pm 21/5/12
The major thing that s**** 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.
greazy
Posted 02:38pm 21/5/12
Legacy of Kain had amazing voice acting and I am not saying this sarcastically.
Hogfather
Posted 02:45pm 21/5/12
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...
Zapo
Posted 02:45pm 21/5/12
I certainly don't know the way to find the next objective


I have noticed that ;) hehe
Hogfather
Posted 02:46pm 21/5/12
I have noticed that ;) hehe

haha f*** you

IN THIS HOUSE WE CLEAR MAPS

Accidentally..
reload!
Posted 02:48pm 21/5/12
7-8/10 for me too.
rock paper shotgun review raises valid points imo.
oh and it's definitely dumbed down.

last edited by reload! at 14:48:01 21/May/12
Hogfather
Posted 02:50pm 21/5/12
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 s*** 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.
reload!
Posted 02:51pm 21/5/12
we get it hoggy, you really like the game
Zapo
Posted 02:56pm 21/5/12
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.

last edited by Zapo at 14:56:50 21/May/12
Raven
Posted 02:56pm 21/5/12
Play a glass cannon then you'll understand what health potions are for.
Zapo
Posted 02:58pm 21/5/12
Play a glass cannon then you'll understand what health potions are for.


That's what diamond skin is for ;)
reload!
Posted 03:02pm 21/5/12
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.
Raven
Posted 03:03pm 21/5/12
What's challenging about flying a kite?
fpot
Posted 03:06pm 21/5/12
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.
d^
Posted 03:06pm 21/5/12
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).
Thundercracker
Posted 03:11pm 21/5/12
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.
Hogfather
Posted 03:19pm 21/5/12
we get it hoggy, you really like the game

Are only negative opinions on the game welcome here?
Hogfather
Posted 03:26pm 21/5/12
we get it hoggy, you really like the game

I'll go back to enjoying it then and leave you to the hate-d3 circlejerk?
andrewus
Posted 03:27pm 21/5/12
yeh i have to agree, i dont mind the voice acting. and it is far better than the voice acting in diablo 2 (see what i did there?)

THERE WAS NONE.. haha
Hogfather
Posted 03:28pm 21/5/12
wtf double post.

ANSWER BOTH OF THEM SIR
d^
Posted 03:41pm 21/5/12
yeh i have to agree, i dont mind the voice acting. and it is far better than the voice acting in diablo 2 (see what i did there?)

THERE WAS NONE.. haha


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258523/


..............
Zapo
Posted 03:43pm 21/5/12
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!!
reload!
Posted 04:09pm 21/5/12
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.
Eorl
Posted 04:19pm 21/5/12
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.
Khel
Posted 04:46pm 21/5/12
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.
Mosfx
Posted 04:52pm 21/5/12

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.
Tollaz0r!
Posted 04:53pm 21/5/12
I swear one of the voices of one of the NPC's in the secret oasis area is the same voice as Po'd dad from Kung Fu panda.
greazy
Posted 05:00pm 21/5/12
James Hong is the guy you are thinking of and some googling says you are right.
Ha
Posted 05:01pm 21/5/12
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.
Blizzard
Posted 05:25pm 21/5/12
I do miss D2's skill tree system, it was the only thing that kept me playing for a long time.
andrewus
Posted 05:31pm 21/5/12
at least in d3 i dont have to read every single script or quest etc etc..

the implementation of the lore's and books is cool. in this aspect, diablo2 had none.
Obes
Posted 05:40pm 21/5/12
9.2 ... really ?

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".
Khel
Posted 05:56pm 21/5/12
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 s*** 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.
Mephz
Posted 05:55pm 21/5/12
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.
paveway
Posted 05:57pm 21/5/12
I do miss D2's skill tree system, it was the only thing that kept me playing for a long time


lol f*****g 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
Tollaz0r!
Posted 05:59pm 21/5/12
I like the skill system in Diablo 3 heaps more then a point style system. Diablo isn't an RPG, not even close. Point systems are for RPG's.
Morbz
Posted 07:09pm 21/5/12
Well good REV and LOL @ HogFather always love your posts brus :D is it worth the purchase had afew lvl 80+ on D2 HC years ago
trog
Posted 09:52pm 21/5/12
If it's any consolation Obes, I'll never play this game
carson
Posted 09:04am 22/5/12
I like it, but I'd say overall it's a 7.5.

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 s***house 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.
Enska
Posted 09:28am 22/5/12
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 f*****g love it.
Icarus
Posted 08:04pm 22/5/12
Batman Arkham City has great voice acting, most notably the Joker.
Nukleuz
Posted 08:34pm 22/5/12
Escapist serves it up

The guy is spot on.
Khel
Posted 08:43pm 22/5/12
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 f*****g 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.
Eorl
Posted 08:53pm 22/5/12
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.
Nukleuz
Posted 08:53pm 22/5/12
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 f***ed 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 s*** with the DRM aspect and are also being told to say 'yum, yum'.
Khel
Posted 08:58pm 22/5/12
Oh yeah, I don't disagree they've f***ed it up, inexplicably they've f***ed 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 f*****g 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...
TicMan
Posted 09:00pm 22/5/12


Haedrig!?
DM
Posted 09:01pm 22/5/12
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.
diese1
Posted 09:34pm 22/5/12
Comparing D2 to D3.

It took them 13 years to:

1) rejig the skill system
2) add in 'destructable' terrain?
3) redo the interface
4) crafting
5) auction house

am i missing something here by being complete underwhelmed by this game?
Maybe if this thing was released 10 years ago this would be acceptable.

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...
tvcars
Posted 09:36pm 22/5/12
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.
Khel
Posted 09:49pm 22/5/12
Heh, first people are complaining its too different from D2 now they're complaining its too much the same? Make up your mind!
icewyrm
Posted 09:52pm 22/5/12
Blizzard stay pretty true to previous titles with sequels.

Were you expecting it to be very different than it turned out to be?
fpot
Posted 09:53pm 22/5/12
Khel is the biggest Blizzard apologist on the interwebz.
skythra
Posted 09:59pm 22/5/12
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?
Nukleuz
Posted 10:02pm 22/5/12
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 s***** 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 s***.

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.
Khel
Posted 10:22pm 22/5/12
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.
Eorl
Posted 10:44pm 22/5/12
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.
dais
Posted 10:45pm 22/5/12
Diablo looked better than Diablo II.
skythra
Posted 10:45pm 22/5/12
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.

Every day since release has been pretty bad.
Eorl
Posted 11:01pm 22/5/12
It's on par with World of Warcraft's release, which is funny because Diablo 3 isn't suppose to be an MMO.
Obes
Posted 11:02pm 22/5/12
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 b**** 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 s*** 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 s***** 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 s*** out of this but it's not a 9.something
(I played the s*** out of torchlight).
Khel
Posted 11:13pm 22/5/12
Every day since release has been pretty bad.


True :(

khel ... I couldn't play my single player toon tonight because of patch to wow ...
Defend that ?


Yeah, its s***, 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 s*** out.
skythra
Posted 11:13pm 22/5/12
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.
reload!
Posted 11:11pm 22/5/12
gotta agree with obes. which pains me but it means it must be true.
deadlyf
Posted 11:15pm 22/5/12
How did they justify full game price for an arcade title?
Dan
Posted 07:48am 23/5/12
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.
gamer
Posted 10:46am 23/5/12
well said obes
Khel
Posted 11:00am 23/5/12
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.
Hogfather
Posted 11:05am 23/5/12
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 f***en 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 s***, but last night's maintenance with no f*****g warning or post on the forum for that purpose (!) is making me start to agree with Obes, which is making me want to /neck.
trog
Posted 11:17am 23/5/12
Your metrics
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
fpot
Posted 11:19am 23/5/12
So has Obes finally achieved full meltdown in this thread? I don't think I have seen such an incoherent rant since Door.
Reverend Evil
Posted 11:19am 23/5/12
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.
trog
Posted 11:35am 23/5/12
Not really, you b**** 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 b****ing 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 s*** 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 s*** out of it, to the point where you are ignoring other games in preference of playing Diablo 3. You can b**** 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 s***, but last night's maintenance with no f*****g 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.
diese1
Posted 11:37am 23/5/12
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?

Or is it a case of "it looks better" which seems to be the go for games these days.

Comparison to other blizzard products. Warcraft 1 - 3 then WOW you can clearly see the advance of gameplay ideas.

Starcraft 2 also falls in the same bucket as diablo 3.....10 years too late for a very unimaginative sequel.
trog
Posted 11:45am 23/5/12
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?
Hogfather
Posted 11:49am 23/5/12
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.
Khel
Posted 11:55am 23/5/12
What amazing leap in gameplay did d3 bring to the table that is holding everyone's attention?


Why does a game need to be an amazing leap forward to be good?

Its a really fun game, thats what holds my attention, thats all any game needs to hold my attention.
diese1
Posted 11:58am 23/5/12
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?
Hogfather
Posted 11:59am 23/5/12
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?

That doesn't mean that chess sucks though?
diese1
Posted 12:02pm 23/5/12
So if I brought out a new game called "chess 2" which had the exact same rules but now instead of white vs black it's blue vs maroon.

Do you think the game should get the same equal scoring of "awesome game" as chess? Do we not reward new interesting ideas anymore?
Dazhel
Posted 12:06pm 23/5/12
Your review scores are almost a measure of the reviewers "hype"-o-meter.

This is, IMO, /the/ problem with scoring games today. You are taking a score at a single snapshot after a relatively brief gaming experience


There we go, both sides agreeing that the score is meaningless. Why are we arguing about the score again?
Dan
Posted 12:07pm 23/5/12
Begs the question though ... why not get a Diablo enthusiast to review this game? Its not like Madden IX, this is f***en 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.
Hogfather
Posted 12:08pm 23/5/12
So if I brought out a new game called "chess 2" which had the exact same rules but now instead of white vs black it's blue vs maroon.

Do you think the game should get the same equal scoring of "awesome game" as chess? Do we not reward new interesting ideas anymore?

False dichotomy.
glynd
Posted 12:11pm 23/5/12
So if I brought out a new game called "chess 2" which had the exact same rules but now instead of white vs black it's blue vs maroon.

Do you think the game should get the same equal scoring of "awesome game" as chess? Do we not reward new interesting ideas anymore?


Here you go mate

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/game/what-is

if any of the new features tickle your fancy, go for gold. if not, don't bother. if you're unhappy with the lack of innovation, vote with your wallet.
diese1
Posted 12:16pm 23/5/12
Excuse my ignorance hog. But how is that a false dicwhateverthefk?

And if you mean the "do we not reward" part. I should have hit return on my iPhone. I meant that as a side statement/rhetorical question.
d^
Posted 12:27pm 23/5/12
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?
dais
Posted 12:28pm 23/5/12
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.
d^
Posted 12:31pm 23/5/12
Trog use the /ignore *name* feature? At least that's what I remember from WC3 online, now that game was brilliant.
dais
Posted 12:33pm 23/5/12
You can do that but it doesn't prevent them from being in the same game as you.
trog
Posted 12:39pm 23/5/12
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).
Hogfather
Posted 12:41pm 23/5/12
Excuse my ignorance hog. But how is that a false dicwhateverthefk?

And if you mean the "do we not reward" part. I should have hit return on my iPhone. I meant that as a side statement/rhetorical question.

A false dichotomy means I think you are being too black and white.
diese1
Posted 12:57pm 23/5/12
I've listed my arguments in what I believe to be in a clear manner.

And responded to/refuted your counter arguments... And your response is...I'm too black and white?

Zapo
Posted 01:13pm 23/5/12
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.
Hogfather
Posted 01:18pm 23/5/12
I've listed my arguments in what I believe to be in a clear manner.

And responded to/refuted your counter arguments... And your response is...I'm too black and white?

Well, yes ... articulating an argument clearly doesn't mean it is credible or valid.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you claim that without amazing innovation d3 can't be compelling and awesome? How is this not a false dichotomy?
trog
Posted 01:24pm 23/5/12
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.
Khel
Posted 01:25pm 23/5/12
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.
Zapo
Posted 01:40pm 23/5/12
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 f*****g 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.
Eorl
Posted 01:43pm 23/5/12
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."
diese1
Posted 02:11pm 23/5/12
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.


diese1
Posted 02:16pm 23/5/12
Don't redesign the wheel, it is already there and working. Instead add onto it, make it more functional and more practical


And thus quake 4 was born... Whatever happened to that game? Does anyone play it?
mental
Posted 02:23pm 23/5/12
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.
Khel
Posted 02:33pm 23/5/12
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.
ravn0s
Posted 02:36pm 23/5/12
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.

last edited by ravn0s at 14:36:30 23/May/12
eski
Posted 02:42pm 23/5/12
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.
eXemplar
Posted 03:12pm 23/5/12
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.
Zapo
Posted 03:18pm 23/5/12
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.

last edited by Zapo at 15:18:55 23/May/12
Hogfather
Posted 03:21pm 23/5/12
And thus quake 4 was born... Whatever happened to that game? Does anyone play it?

How silly.

Baldur's Gate II.
d^
Posted 03:27pm 23/5/12
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.
diese1
Posted 03:28pm 23/5/12
You're forgetting hog. We didn't wait 13 years for baldurs gate 2.
Hogfather
Posted 03:33pm 23/5/12
You're forgetting hog. We didn't wait 13 years for baldurs gate 2.

What does that have to do with this innovation vs. iteration thing you're pushing?

Its almost like you're making up random rules to defend a dopey pov?

Mass Effect II.
diese1
Posted 03:35pm 23/5/12
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.
Khel
Posted 03:35pm 23/5/12
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.
greazy
Posted 03:39pm 23/5/12
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!
Zapo
Posted 03:40pm 23/5/12
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.
trog
Posted 03:41pm 23/5/12
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.
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.
Hogfather
Posted 03:42pm 23/5/12
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?
diese1
Posted 03:41pm 23/5/12
Warcraft 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 s*** was done ie dota.

This is what I would expect after an 8 year wait.
Hogfather
Posted 03:44pm 23/5/12
Also within wc3 ppl were using the map editors which I assume was more powerful then the Starcraft ones. Cause some amazing s*** was done ie dota.

Yeh, that about sums up why its not worth continuing this line of discussion.

Cya.
Zapo
Posted 03:49pm 23/5/12
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 s*** 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.

You've just proved our point man.
casa
Posted 03:55pm 23/5/12
Hay guys, they introduced battle net with warcraft 3.

Is this c*** baiting or is he dead-set retarded?

Plus I wouldn't really call increasing the races from 2 to 4 as "bringing the goods".

last edited by casa at 15:55:10 23/May/12
Khel
Posted 03:53pm 23/5/12
Warcraft 3 came with the goods though.


Oh ok, lets compare then.

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?
diese1
Posted 03:55pm 23/5/12
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?
Hogfather
Posted 04:00pm 23/5/12
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.
Tollaz0r!
Posted 04:01pm 23/5/12
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.
Thundercracker
Posted 04:06pm 23/5/12
I rate diablo 3 11/10.
d^
Posted 04:07pm 23/5/12
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.
Obes
Posted 08:54pm 23/5/12
Games are subjective - deal with it.

In otherwords trog your scores are meaningless!
So why have them.

They are a meaningless metric.

The 3 point scale someone else mentioned is far more useful because it is less granular.

You have a 10 point scale for a bulls*** metric.
Hogfather
Posted 09:10pm 23/5/12
Obes find a new term or something?

The scores seem to be a pretty good indicator of what the reviewer thought of the title...
shad
Posted 09:18pm 23/5/12
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.

I give D3 8 angry Obes out of 10.
mental
Posted 09:20pm 23/5/12
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.
Enska
Posted 09:30pm 23/5/12
Someone make a meme with an old dude standing on his lawn going on about s***** review scores already, I've been waiting three pages!%^!
Reverend Evil
Posted 10:13pm 23/5/12
F*** you guys are a bunch of whinging fairies. The game is good and you either like playing stuff like Diablo or you don't.

Also, a score out of three stars could also work. 1 star = don't bother, 2 stars = ok game, 3 stars = definitely worth playing
mental
Posted 10:21pm 23/5/12
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.
skythra
Posted 02:05am 24/5/12
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.

Well that's what i think.
skythra
Posted 02:26am 24/5/12
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.
trog
Posted 01:45pm 26/5/12
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 :(
demon
Posted 01:49pm 26/5/12
I give D3 8 angry Obes out of 10.

heh. you guys should totally do this ^
do your usual review, wait for the forum fallout, rate the ranting on the angry obes scale (metric)
:D
Eorl
Posted 02:30pm 26/5/12
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.
tvcars
Posted 12:23am 31/5/12
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.
parabol
Posted 12:30am 31/5/12
Wouldn't a better score be based on the difficulty of the game

I could make a very annoying and buggy game that's deliberately impossible to progress/finish.

Does focusing mainly on its difficulty achieve much? Not really.
Viper119
Posted 01:06am 31/5/12
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.
Khel
Posted 09:48am 31/5/12
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?
Eorl
Posted 09:50am 31/5/12
Maybe just a simple thumbs up and thumbs down would be more beneficial and still give the same message.
Hogfather
Posted 10:04am 31/5/12
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?
Khel
Posted 10:16am 31/5/12
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 s***" 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.
Hogfather
Posted 10:55am 31/5/12
That's the nature of the internet though! Its full of s***bags.
Damo
Posted 11:39am 31/5/12
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.
Tollaz0r!
Posted 11:46am 31/5/12
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.

last edited by Tollaz0r! at 11:46:12 31/May/12
Hogfather
Posted 11:46am 31/5/12
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.

I bought it like 9 months ago I think!
Zapo
Posted 11:47am 31/5/12
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 f*****g 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.
Damo
Posted 11:48am 31/5/12
I bought the CE the moment it went on sale at EB.

Probably only game I enjoy playing.
Hogfather
Posted 11:50am 31/5/12
Yeh, people accuse me of fanboyism, maybe its a fair call, but no game since sc2 has had me playing for > 50 hours with no end in sight.

Maybe DOTA2, but I hate that f*****g game as much as I love it.
ravn0s
Posted 11:59am 31/5/12
Yeh, people accuse me of fanboyism, maybe its a fair call, but no game since sc2 has had me playing for > 50 hours with no end in sight.


heh i have over 800 hrs on tf2 :/
Khel
Posted 12:04pm 31/5/12
I'd have thousands of hours in WoW, and hundreds in ToR, but I guess MMOs are a bit of a different deal.

D3 is definitely the most time I've put into a non-MMO game for a very long time.
icewyrm
Posted 12:50pm 31/5/12
Maybe DOTA2, but I hate that f*****g game as much as I love it.


This seems to be a defining quality of mobas in general.
tvcars
Posted 06:38pm 31/5/12
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.
Commenting has been locked for this item.
166 Comments
Show