The final point; This game did not live up to the expectations for a Blizzard/Diablo franchise game. Obviously, that's very opinionated, and if you disagree with this assessment that is fine, but just know you are in the vast minority.
I would love to see your official data on the matter, indisputably refuting the idea that more than a very small minority of players are still enjoying this game.
I await eagerly your response on the subject.
And to the few others who question my assessment with many feeling as though the game was a let down. Look no further than gaming website user reviews. Metacritic average user has scored the game 3.9 out of 10 with over 6,000 reviews. Is that not telling enough? How about a quick visit to the general forums where there are dozens of polls with people unhappy. How about the fact that Blizzard has agreed that there is no end-game to speak of. Or the fact that Blizzard, a multi-billion dollar company is now caving in and asking what its fans would like in regards to MF because they have not the slightest idea how to deal with the issue.
Listen guys, I'm not going to do your research for you, but unless you have your head in the sand, it is blatantly obvious that the majority of the people are not happy with the games current state and its longevity.
Metacritic user scores - now there's an accurate read of opinions! And all 6,000 of them. Wooooooooooo.
The six thousand meta-critic reviews is the most reviews the website has ever had for a computer game. I would say that 6000 is a large enough sample size to at least get a approximate pulse of how people feel about the game. Considering, you have to have a meta-critic account in goodstanding to post reviews, I think its a fair point of reference. So for you to belittle something so telling comes off as pretty ignorant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I believe in the sand beneath my toes. The beach gives a feeling, an earthy feeling. I believe in the faith that grows, And the four right chords can make me cry. When I'm with you I feel like I could die, and that would be alright"
I see your Diablo II years of development, and raise you Diablo III's decade + of development.
I see your ignorant quote about development time and raise you plenty of information circulating around the internet claiming that the original Diablo 3 was scrapped in late 2003 and didn't pick back up until 2005 at least. I also raise you the fact that you have absolutely no idea what goes into game development, especially at this scale. Your continued use of hyperbole and lack of factual evidence only contributes to that belief.
Metacritic user scores - now there's an accurate read of opinions! And all 6,000 of them. Wooooooooooo.
I'll take the actual critic scores (that's an 88 for you, champ)
In this circumstance, with this type of game, Using critic scores is idiotic. Critics and publications want to get their review out there first, so a quick playthrough of the game and they decide on a score. Nearly every score on metacritic was posted within 10 days times of the game being released, before the RMAH was even available, and before nerfs ect. So critics reviews tell very little in regards to the game late game, which is of my main concern.
That's like taking a mmorpg review seriously. Is it a good starting point to see if you should be interested in the game? Sure. Is it a concrete review that encapsulates the game? No, because there is constant patching, and its nearly impossible for a critic to experience the entire game in a weeks time.
By your own admission, critics are posting reviews before everything is "set," and yet your return evidence is user reviews who did the exact same thing, and continue to do the exact same thing (because 2 months is hardly a realistic timeframe for a newly released game to be "set" in its workings), while intertwining the aforementioned emotion into the response. Yep, sounds like a pretty good baseline for determining what several million people think.
I'm done feeding you, troll. You make shit up to confirm your beliefs, you engage in constant hyperbole while ignoring common sense or any form of critical thinking, and you're a hypocrite to boot.
I see your Diablo II years of development, and raise you Diablo III's decade + of development.
I see your ignorant quote about development time and raise you plenty of information circulating around the internet claiming that the original Diablo 3 was scrapped in late 2003 and didn't pick back up until 2005 at least. I also raise you the fact that you have absolutely no idea what goes into game development, especially at this scale. Your continued use of hyperbole and lack of factual evidence only contributes to that belief.
Metacritic user scores - now there's an accurate read of opinions! And all 6,000 of them. Wooooooooooo.
I'll take the actual critic scores (that's an 88 for you, champ)
In this circumstance, with this type of game, Using critic scores is idiotic. Critics and publications want to get their review out there first, so a quick playthrough of the game and they decide on a score. Nearly every score on metacritic was posted within 10 days times of the game being released, before the RMAH was even available, and before nerfs ect. So critics reviews tell very little in regards to the game late game, which is of my main concern.
That's like taking a mmorpg review seriously. Is it a good starting point to see if you should be interested in the game? Sure. Is it a concrete review that encapsulates the game? No, because there is constant patching, and its nearly impossible for a critic to experience the entire game in a weeks time.
By your own admission, critics are posting reviews before everything is "set," and yet your return evidence is user reviews who did the exact same thing, and continue to do the exact same thing (because 2 months is hardly a realistic timeframe for a newly released game to be "set" in its workings), while intertwining the aforementioned emotion into the response. Yep, sounds like a pretty good baseline for determining what several million people think.
I'm done feeding you, troll. You make shit up to confirm your beliefs, you engage in constant hyperbole while ignoring common sense or any form of critical thinking, and you're a hypocrite to boot.
I'll make this very easy on you Zakaz, do you think the majority of Diablo II players are happy with Diablo III in its current state?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I believe in the sand beneath my toes. The beach gives a feeling, an earthy feeling. I believe in the faith that grows, And the four right chords can make me cry. When I'm with you I feel like I could die, and that would be alright"
Yeah, I've got nearly 400 hours now across all my toons and am still enjoying it. I rarely ever play it without multi-tasking though, but it is fun to play it while watching TV or doing something else at the same time.
In this circumstance, with this type of game, Using critic scores is idiotic. Critics and publications want to get their review out there first, so a quick playthrough of the game and they decide on a score. Nearly every score on metacritic was posted within 10 days times of the game being released, before the RMAH was even available, and before nerfs ect. So critics reviews tell very little in regards to the game late game, which is of my main concern.
That's like taking a mmorpg review seriously. Is it a good starting point to see if you should be interested in the game? Sure. Is it a concrete review that encapsulates the game? No, because there is constant patching, and its nearly impossible for a critic to experience the entire game in a weeks time.
It's no less valid than using the opinions of 6000 forum trolls who want to exact holy vengeance against Blizzard.
In fact, in this case, I'd actually argue that the PROFESSIONALS have less bias than the haters who just... can't... let... it... go. I think it's time for Dae to come to this thread and explain why people rating D3 "0" out of 5, or 10, or whatever, are not to be taken seriously. Cause, you know, he's only done that in two threads so far.
Hell, I see a USER review that gave the game a 1/10 after just seven hours. I see another one that gave it a 0/10 within 24 hours. Hell, the first five reviews are 1, 0, 0, 1, 0... all within 24 hours. So I'm supposed to believe that those were people who actually gave the game a chance that the critics didn't?
It goes both ways, except the critics are just not retarded enough to believe that any game, unless outright unplayable, merits less than roughly a 3 or 4 out of 10. There is no way under the sun that anyone who gives D3 a zero is rational and not lashing out in anger.
It's pretty funny because the critics have the opposite opinion of the forum haters: they claim the game invents very little in the way of new mechanics and is basically a modern remake of Diablo 2. The forum haters claim that Blizzard changed too much, which is pretty funny.
I don't know if "enjoying" is the right word. I'm still fighting my way through act 4 inferno, I refuse to buy anything from either auction house unless I'm flipping the item. Of course, I spend a lot of time on the auction house regardless, I'm making as much money off the RMAH as I can before it goes tits up and it's not possible anymore. Either way, I suppose I'm still playing, and I have about 365 hours in total across my 3 characters.
It's no less valid than using the opinions of 6000 forum trolls who want to exact holy vengeance against Blizzard.
In fact, in this case, I'd actually argue that the PROFESSIONALS have less bias than the haters who just... can't... let... it... go. I think it's time for Dae to come to this thread and explain why people rating D3 "0" out of 5, or 10, or whatever, are not to be taken seriously. Cause, you know, he's only done that in two threads so far.
Hell, I see a USER review that gave the game a 1/10 after just seven hours. I see another one that gave it a 0/10 within 24 hours. Hell, the first five reviews are 1, 0, 0, 1, 0... all within 24 hours. So I'm supposed to believe that those were people who actually gave the game a chance that the critics didn't?
My argument for this would be, for every two people that gave the game a 1/10, 2/10, 3/10 ect. There was at LEAST one person that gave the game a perfect 10/10 within a few hours. In the end it equals itself out, and what we are left with, for the most part, are a lot of people that gave the game unjust 1's, a lot of people that gave the game unjust 10's and a lot of people in the middle that weren't on either extreme. I think it's a good approximation of where the community is, not exact, but a good starting point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I believe in the sand beneath my toes. The beach gives a feeling, an earthy feeling. I believe in the faith that grows, And the four right chords can make me cry. When I'm with you I feel like I could die, and that would be alright"
I will admit that is hurtful, but only because those are all so skewed when a group of people are upset. A lot of games will have that happen when even a small issue with the game arises that upsets people. Now it's okay for people to be upset, that's fine. What's scary is that some companies take user reviews like they're directly representative of a games success.
For example Fallout: New Vegas, a pretty big success overall, but had many bugs at first which caused a pretty big backlash. It was sitting at 84 for PC and 82 for consoles. Because of missing that 85 score Obsidian Entertainment didn't receive their bonus from Bethesda and ended up having to lay off 30 employees. Nevermind it sold over 1.4million in the first week and many more down the line, they didn't meet the metacritic criteria.
The only time I'd ever give a game a 0 is if it just outright wouldn't work. Not because I was mad at design changes from a previous title or because I felt the game was too easy, or whatever else it might be. There is absolutely no reason Diablo 3 deserves a 0, I would even say anything below a 2 but that's really just all based in people's opinions and well you know what they say about opinions.
Blizzard seems to know better though and they tend to look more towards the community in depth as a whole in what people like over a review number.
Basically go through and take out all the ones that are 0's and you MIGHT have a more accurate rating. Metacritic is a really crappy system and even having 0 as a choice is a joke.
The game is also not going to meet everyones expectations of longevity. I've personally got about 200 hours in and I'm still having fun playing it here and there.
Meaning 0s outnumber 10s by a margin of over 10 to 1 (which is a far cry from your 2 to 1 estimate). 51 0s on the first page, all within 24 hours. You mean to tell me those are LEGIT reviews? Stop being ridiculous, it's clear that those ratings are a bunch of people raging against Blizzard. In fact, there are 51 0s, and 48 non-0s. That should tell you something in and of itself.
*high fives Dae* You're gonna get mileage out of that quote man. I'm telling you!
yeah still enjoying the game, setting gold goals, preparing for pvp, and doing achievements , still gotta level dh , and wizard to 60 and gear them as well, don't like WD he is not aesthetic at all.
A response to you and to the few others who question my assessment, which was me saying the game was a let down for a Diablo/Blizzard title;
Look no further than gaming website user reviews. Metacritic average user has scored the game 3.9 out of 10 with over 6,000 user reviews. Is that not telling enough?
This is telling NOTHING. I take the same stance as TotalBiscuit about the Meta-Critic thing in that I think metacritic needs to die in a raging inferno. The low score for Diablo 3 is based on the vocal butt hurt kids who couldn't play on day one when the game came out. Any of us who have seen a Blizzard release before knew to expect this, but still decided to put in reviews of 0 on metacritic.
Seriously? a zero. A zero means a game is completely unservicable on any level. Diablo 3 may have been down for the first few days, but it was far from a zero. Even if you argue that it's an average game then it should at least get a 5-6 on a 1-10 scale. This means your data points are skewed.
On top of that a score rating means nothing. A game should be judged by the context of the review, not by some arbitrary score. Worse yet, metacritic will try to guess what a score should be on their 1-10 scale. If a user uses a 1-5 scale or an alpha scare (A+ through F) then it tries to guess what the score should be. Numbers are meaningless, especially when reviews are about personal opinion and expression.
How about a quick visit to the general forums where there are dozens of polls with people unhappy. How about the fact that Blizzard has agreed that there is no end-game to speak of. Or the fact that Blizzard, a multi-billion dollar company is now caving in and asking what its fans would like in regards to MF because they have not the slightest idea how to deal with the issue. How about that Kripparian, perhaps the games most dedicated and outspoken player, continues to make YouTube video after YT video talking about broken mechanics in the game and how to try and work around them.
Listen guys, I'm not going to do your research for you, but unless you have your head in the sand, it is blatantly obvious that the majority of the people are not happy with the games current state and its longevity.
You're mistaking the fact that the game has issues (which is true) with the game has been disappointing. You're also trying to say that just because there are issues that most gamers dislike it. You've got plenty of posts here to disprove that. Many gamers, much like myself, believe the game does need tweaking but are far from displeased. The fact that I have over 200 hours I think proves that. It just means the game has room to grow and get better. I'm not going to say the game is "teh best game evar" but I'm realistic about my expectations and know that hitches are going to happen. They've been very speedy when it comes to fixes, more so than most companies. Trust me on this, Battlefield 3 is just one example of a game that had issues that needed fixing on day one that took far to long to fix.
Also, on the realm of asking the community about feedback, this doesn't mean they don't know what to do, it means they want to know what we think. They have several ideas they could try but want to know which one we, as the players, feel the happiest about. They will make their choice based on that feedback. Asking a community for feedback is invaluable. How else do you improve your product? I'll take them asking the community over companies who ignore their community.
Just don't go judging Diablo 3 v1.0.3 against Diablo 2: LoD at Patch v1.12+. There is kind of YEARS of development that made Diablo 2 as great as it was.
I see your Diablo II years of development, and raise you Diablo III's decade + of development.
Except that you're forgetting the game was released in 2000 and the last patch came out in 2011... that's 11 years of "development time" not counting the development time it took to make the game. Diablo 2 has 11 years of POLISH beyond the initial development, people keep forgetting that.
I'll make this very easy on you Zakaz, do you think the majority of Diablo II players are happy with Diablo III in its current state?
Since I'm a Diablo 2 player that's happy with Diablo 3, I'd have to say 'yes' based on my own data points. The thing is, the real answer is "I don't know" and neither do you! I cannot speak for the majority of players nor can you, we'd be putting our own words into the mouths of millions of gamers.
I will admit that is hurtful, but only because those are all so skewed when a group of people are upset. A lot of games will have that happen when even a small issue with the game arises that upsets people. Now it's okay for people to be upset, that's fine. What's scary is that some companies take user reviews like they're directly representative of a games success.
For example Fallout: New Vegas, a pretty big success overall, but had many bugs at first which caused a pretty big backlash. It was sitting at 84 for PC and 82 for consoles. Because of missing that 85 score Obsidian Entertainment didn't receive their bonus from Bethesda and ended up having to lay off 30 employees. Nevermind it sold over 1.4million in the first week and many more down the line, they didn't meet the metacritic criteria.
The only time I'd ever give a game a 0 is if it just outright wouldn't work. Not because I was mad at design changes from a previous title or because I felt the game was too easy, or whatever else it might be. There is absolutely no reason Diablo 3 deserves a 0, I would even say anything below a 2 but that's really just all based in people's opinions and well you know what they say about opinions.
Blizzard seems to know better though and they tend to look more towards the community in depth as a whole in what people like over a review number.
Basically go through and take out all the ones that are 0's and you MIGHT have a more accurate rating. Metacritic is a really crappy system and even having 0 as a choice is a joke.
The game is also not going to meet everyones expectations of longevity. I've personally got about 200 hours in and I'm still having fun playing it here and there.
Interesting, and I agree! This game does not deserve a zero, and those who did; shame on you! I would say, any reasonable person, couldn't possible grade the game lower than a 3. And that's assuming the individual didn't like rpgs to begin with. If we got rid of all the 0's, it would only be fair to reallocate them somewhere between a 3 and a 6, right? In which case, maybe the metacritic user score would resemble something closer to a 5 or 6, either way, a pretty mediocre review. Which, I think is fair.
If I were one to simply play the game, not ever having played a Diablo or Blizzard title. Not expecting an end game, and not expecting all the game systems to be fully functional and usable, I would give the game a 8/10.
However, since I did have these expectations, I cannot give the game higher than a 6 out of 10, but that's me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I believe in the sand beneath my toes. The beach gives a feeling, an earthy feeling. I believe in the faith that grows, And the four right chords can make me cry. When I'm with you I feel like I could die, and that would be alright"
Meaning 0s outnumber 10s by a margin of over 10 to 1 (which is a far cry from your 2 to 1 estimate). 51 0s on the first page, all within 24 hours. You mean to tell me those are LEGIT reviews? Stop being ridiculous, it's clear that those ratings are a bunch of people raging against Blizzard.
*high fives Dae* You're gonna get mileage out of that quote man. I'm telling you!
I agree, zeros aren't justified, but perhaps a 3,4,5, or 6 would be. Also, looking at the last 24 hours, we'd probably agree there are going to be more 0's, than if we were to look at the games first 24 hours, simply because people are fed up with the title at this point.
My point is, the people who graded the game zero, obviously do not think the game is that atrocious, but they do not think the game is good. Either way, it would receive a poor review, these losers just decided to give the game the lowest review they could, which is not fair. But regardless of what score they gave the game, the review would still be negative.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I believe in the sand beneath my toes. The beach gives a feeling, an earthy feeling. I believe in the faith that grows, And the four right chords can make me cry. When I'm with you I feel like I could die, and that would be alright"
"I believe in the sand beneath my toes. The beach gives a feeling, an earthy feeling. I believe in the faith that grows, And the four right chords can make me cry. When I'm with you I feel like I could die, and that would be alright"
For example Fallout: New Vegas, a pretty big success overall, but had many bugs at first which caused a pretty big backlash. It was sitting at 84 for PC and 82 for consoles. Because of missing that 85 score Obsidian Entertainment didn't receive their bonus from Bethesda and ended up having to lay off 30 employees. Nevermind it sold over 1.4million in the first week and many more down the line, they didn't meet the metacritic criteria.
When I heard this story, Daemaro, I got very upset. I think it's crazy that they lost their money because they didn't get just ONE point on metacritic. this is part of the reason I hate the metacritic system as developers will use it as leverage. Lots of people lost their jobs and future projects were ruined because they weren't paid what they were due.
A sad day for gamers everywhere... especially when you look at the commercial success Fallout New Vegas was.
Interesting, and I agree! This game does not deserve a zero, and those who did; shame on you! I would say, any reasonable person, couldn't possible grade the game lower than a 3. And that's assuming the individual didn't like rpgs to begin with. If we got rid of all the 0's, it would only be fair to reallocate them somewhere between a 3 and a 6, right? In which case, maybe the metacritic user score would resemble something closer to a 5 or 6, either way, a pretty mediocre review. Which, I think is fair.
If I were one to simply play the game, not ever having played a Diablo or Blizzard title. Not expecting an end game, and not expecting all the game systems to be fully functional and usable, I would give the game a 8/10.
However, since I did have these expectations, I cannot give the game higher than a 6 out of 10, but that's me.
Which is your opinion. Which is fine, everyone is allowed to have an opinion. That's the beauty of metacritic, it's the sum of everyones opinion. And you would think, even if so many bad reviews were given because of the connection problems a day after release, if the game was well recieved, it's good reviews would have overshadowed them by now.
My point is I guess, is MetaCritic is a completely valid way of seeing the publics opinion about Diablo 3, and it's not good. Try to invalidate the score all you want, but the score is valid and it will stick.
Interesting, and I agree! This game does not deserve a zero, and those who did; shame on you! I would say, any reasonable person, couldn't possible grade the game lower than a 3. And that's assuming the individual didn't like rpgs to begin with. If we got rid of all the 0's, it would only be fair to reallocate them somewhere between a 3 and a 6, right? In which case, maybe the metacritic user score would resemble something closer to a 5 or 6, either way, a pretty mediocre review. Which, I think is fair.
If I were one to simply play the game, not ever having played a Diablo or Blizzard title. Not expecting an end game, and not expecting all the game systems to be fully functional and usable, I would give the game a 8/10.
However, since I did have these expectations, I cannot give the game higher than a 6 out of 10, but that's me.
Which is your opinion. Which is fine, everyone is allowed to have an opinion. That's the beauty of metacritic, it's the sum of everyones opinion. And you would think, even if so many bad reviews were given because of the connection problems a day after release, if the game was well recieved, it's good reviews would have overshadowed them by now.
My point is I guess, is MetaCritic is a completely valid way of seeing the publics opinion about Diablo 3, and it's not good. Try to invalidate the score all you want, but the score is valid and it will stick.
I didnt realize the "Public" was just a paltry 1000 people...... (im actually willing to bet if you added up all of the forum haters, the metacritic bombers, etc, you wouldent even be able to pull together 10k unique people, reality, its a bitch, aint it?)
Last time I checked, thats not even 1% of the people who bought D3 LAST WEEK, and around .0001% of the total user base.
One day, prolly 6 months from now, the bleary eyed haters will come to the realization that for all thier bluster, D3 is a smashing success.
Personally, in 2-3-ish years, when an expansion drops, and sells 6 million units right on day one, I will be taking holidays from work, so I can play the expo, and of course laugh myself to tears at the mindless haters, and thier deluded reality.
The final point; This game did not live up to the expectations for a Blizzard/Diablo franchise game. Obviously, that's very opinionated, and if you disagree with this assessment that is fine, but just know you are in the vast minority.
I would love to see your official data on the matter, indisputably refuting the idea that more than a very small minority of players are still enjoying this game.
I await eagerly your response on the subject.
Here, posted a matter of hours ago. And while the article doesn't speak to whether individuals are enjoying the game or not, it is safe to assume that if they were, they'd still be playing. But I am sure you'll find a way to dismiss this article with your rhetoric,
From the article, "Simply put, both Gametrics and Xfire are both reporting close to a 65% drop-off rate of the player base from Diablo III. . . a third source has jumped into the picture affirming that the player base is indeed dropping off fast."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I believe in the sand beneath my toes. The beach gives a feeling, an earthy feeling. I believe in the faith that grows, And the four right chords can make me cry. When I'm with you I feel like I could die, and that would be alright"
Meaning 0s outnumber 10s by a margin of over 10 to 1 (which is a far cry from your 2 to 1 estimate). 51 0s on the first page, all within 24 hours. You mean to tell me those are LEGIT reviews? Stop being ridiculous, it's clear that those ratings are a bunch of people raging against Blizzard.
*high fives Dae* You're gonna get mileage out of that quote man. I'm telling you!
I agree, zeros aren't justified, but perhaps a 3,4,5, or 6 would be. Also, looking at the last 24 hours, we'd probably agree there are going to be more 0's, than if we were to look at the games first 24 hours, simply because people are fed up with the title at this point.
My point is, the people who graded the game zero, obviously do not think the game is that atrocious, but they do not think the game is good. Either way, it would receive a poor review, these losers just decided to give the game the lowest review they could, which is not fair. But regardless of what score they gave the game, the review would still be negative.
Right, we agree on that point. I, personally, don't see D3 as much below a 5 (I'd personally give it around a 7, much the same as what I'd have given D2 on launch, coincidentally). It has issues, but to vote that you feel D3 is a "below average" game is just being ig'nant if you know what I'm saying. Once you venture below a 5 you fall into the realm of games which have severe issues that really make it unplayable, moving down to the lowest rating (which to me indicates a game that is completely unplayable).
I'm going to temper that by saying that, in general, I can't think of a game that I've played that I would have ever given lower than a 5 anyway. I have not played a game which has given me so little enjoyment and so much grief that I must uninstall it immediately. I'm sure there are a small handful of people for whom D3 was like that, but I'm pretty sure that's the same for any game.
Also @ XFire thing, there was a thread about that. XFire causes D3 to crash, it's a documented bug. So of course XFire is going to report a massive dropoff for D3. If you're running XFire you probably don't have a stable D3 experience, and if you want to play D3 stably you're going to uninstall XFire (and consequently they're not going to aggregate that data).
I have no clue about Gametrics, but I do know that XFire is a totally meaningless metric on the subject because of the bug.
EDIT
I also disagree with ANYONE who would give the game a 0 at this point, after playing it for two months. That, again, is simply blind hatred and lashing out over unmet expectations. It's not an unbiased review. It's an outright dismissal of anything that could have been construed as positive in favor of INTERNET RAAAAAAAAGGGGEEEEE.
EDIT 2
LOL @ Internet Cafe statistics. Is that a sample that's even indicative of gamers? I mean I realize it's a way to get a big sample quickly, but isn't it reasonable to think that most D3 players are *not* playing in Internet Cafes? I'm from the US, so Internet Cafes really aren't a cultural thing here, and I understand they're more popular elsewhere, so I ask partially out of ignorance. But part of me feels like the demographic that Internet Cafes cater to are probably people who are more interested in The Sims than Diablo.
I didnt realize the "Public" was just a paltry 1000 people...... (im actually willing to bet if you added up all of the forum haters, the metacritic bombers, etc, you wouldent even be able to pull together 10k unique people, reality, its a bitch, aint it?)
Last time I checked, thats not even 1% of the people who bought D3 LAST WEEK, and around .0001% of the total user base.
One day, prolly 6 months from now, the bleary eyed haters will come to the realization that for all thier bluster, D3 is a smashing success.
Personally, in 2-3-ish years, when an expansion drops, and sells 6 million units right on day one, I will be taking holidays from work, so I can play the expo, and of course laugh myself to tears at the mindless haters, and thier deluded reality.
First off, you have no idea if Diablo 3 was a "smashing success" or not. Let's look at the numbers. Yes, it sold 7 million copies over the first 24 hours of sale. A game this highly anticipated, it's not really a surprise. Even then, you have no idea what the production costs of the game were, how much revenue was actually profit from those 7 million copies, or how much the game is making after initial sale. If independent sources are reporting a 65% drop of the player base, and Activision Blizzard touted that the game would provide sustainable profit through real money transactions, then how much money are they making if no one is using the auction house? No doubt the game sold well and is still doing pretty good, but i'm highly concerned with the amount of players that just aren't playing anymore. And to be honest, until Act/Blizz releases profit numbers from sales and real money transactions, which isn't even likely they will ever do so, we will not ever know how much this game has made or is making. Enjoy the game, no one is telling you not to, I'm not even saying it's a bad game. Point is, players are not playing anymore, and that's not good for a Blizzard game.
And about the metacritic score, just give up that argument. Saying the Diablo 3 score is invalid is like saying the score is invalid for EVERY game. Again, you can think highly of the game, but that doesn't mean that others have to also.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
200+ hours and nothing left to do, I'd say I got my money's worth but I bought the CE so no.
The six thousand meta-critic reviews is the most reviews the website has ever had for a computer game. I would say that 6000 is a large enough sample size to at least get a approximate pulse of how people feel about the game. Considering, you have to have a meta-critic account in goodstanding to post reviews, I think its a fair point of reference. So for you to belittle something so telling comes off as pretty ignorant.
I see your ignorant quote about development time and raise you plenty of information circulating around the internet claiming that the original Diablo 3 was scrapped in late 2003 and didn't pick back up until 2005 at least. I also raise you the fact that you have absolutely no idea what goes into game development, especially at this scale. Your continued use of hyperbole and lack of factual evidence only contributes to that belief.
By your own admission, critics are posting reviews before everything is "set," and yet your return evidence is user reviews who did the exact same thing, and continue to do the exact same thing (because 2 months is hardly a realistic timeframe for a newly released game to be "set" in its workings), while intertwining the aforementioned emotion into the response. Yep, sounds like a pretty good baseline for determining what several million people think.
I'm done feeding you, troll. You make shit up to confirm your beliefs, you engage in constant hyperbole while ignoring common sense or any form of critical thinking, and you're a hypocrite to boot.
I'll make this very easy on you Zakaz, do you think the majority of Diablo II players are happy with Diablo III in its current state?
It's pretty funny because the critics have the opposite opinion of the forum haters: they claim the game invents very little in the way of new mechanics and is basically a modern remake of Diablo 2. The forum haters claim that Blizzard changed too much, which is pretty funny.
My argument for this would be, for every two people that gave the game a 1/10, 2/10, 3/10 ect. There was at LEAST one person that gave the game a perfect 10/10 within a few hours. In the end it equals itself out, and what we are left with, for the most part, are a lot of people that gave the game unjust 1's, a lot of people that gave the game unjust 10's and a lot of people in the middle that weren't on either extreme. I think it's a good approximation of where the community is, not exact, but a good starting point.
Basically go through and take out all the ones that are 0's and you MIGHT have a more accurate rating. Metacritic is a really crappy system and even having 0 as a choice is a joke.
The game is also not going to meet everyones expectations of longevity. I've personally got about 200 hours in and I'm still having fun playing it here and there.
I just did a quick tally on the first page of reviews and got the following:
0: 51
1: 11
2: 8
3: 1
4: 5
5: 9
6: 3
7: 1
8: 4
9: 1
10: 5
Meaning 0s outnumber 10s by a margin of over 10 to 1 (which is a far cry from your 2 to 1 estimate). 51 0s on the first page, all within 24 hours. You mean to tell me those are LEGIT reviews? Stop being ridiculous, it's clear that those ratings are a bunch of people raging against Blizzard. In fact, there are 51 0s, and 48 non-0s. That should tell you something in and of itself.
*high fives Dae* You're gonna get mileage out of that quote man. I'm telling you!
This is telling NOTHING. I take the same stance as TotalBiscuit about the Meta-Critic thing in that I think metacritic needs to die in a raging inferno. The low score for Diablo 3 is based on the vocal butt hurt kids who couldn't play on day one when the game came out. Any of us who have seen a Blizzard release before knew to expect this, but still decided to put in reviews of 0 on metacritic.
Seriously? a zero. A zero means a game is completely unservicable on any level. Diablo 3 may have been down for the first few days, but it was far from a zero. Even if you argue that it's an average game then it should at least get a 5-6 on a 1-10 scale. This means your data points are skewed.
On top of that a score rating means nothing. A game should be judged by the context of the review, not by some arbitrary score. Worse yet, metacritic will try to guess what a score should be on their 1-10 scale. If a user uses a 1-5 scale or an alpha scare (A+ through F) then it tries to guess what the score should be. Numbers are meaningless, especially when reviews are about personal opinion and expression.
You're mistaking the fact that the game has issues (which is true) with the game has been disappointing. You're also trying to say that just because there are issues that most gamers dislike it. You've got plenty of posts here to disprove that. Many gamers, much like myself, believe the game does need tweaking but are far from displeased. The fact that I have over 200 hours I think proves that. It just means the game has room to grow and get better. I'm not going to say the game is "teh best game evar" but I'm realistic about my expectations and know that hitches are going to happen. They've been very speedy when it comes to fixes, more so than most companies. Trust me on this, Battlefield 3 is just one example of a game that had issues that needed fixing on day one that took far to long to fix.
Also, on the realm of asking the community about feedback, this doesn't mean they don't know what to do, it means they want to know what we think. They have several ideas they could try but want to know which one we, as the players, feel the happiest about. They will make their choice based on that feedback. Asking a community for feedback is invaluable. How else do you improve your product? I'll take them asking the community over companies who ignore their community.
Except that you're forgetting the game was released in 2000 and the last patch came out in 2011... that's 11 years of "development time" not counting the development time it took to make the game. Diablo 2 has 11 years of POLISH beyond the initial development, people keep forgetting that.
Since I'm a Diablo 2 player that's happy with Diablo 3, I'd have to say 'yes' based on my own data points. The thing is, the real answer is "I don't know" and neither do you! I cannot speak for the majority of players nor can you, we'd be putting our own words into the mouths of millions of gamers.
Interesting, and I agree! This game does not deserve a zero, and those who did; shame on you! I would say, any reasonable person, couldn't possible grade the game lower than a 3. And that's assuming the individual didn't like rpgs to begin with. If we got rid of all the 0's, it would only be fair to reallocate them somewhere between a 3 and a 6, right? In which case, maybe the metacritic user score would resemble something closer to a 5 or 6, either way, a pretty mediocre review. Which, I think is fair.
If I were one to simply play the game, not ever having played a Diablo or Blizzard title. Not expecting an end game, and not expecting all the game systems to be fully functional and usable, I would give the game a 8/10.
However, since I did have these expectations, I cannot give the game higher than a 6 out of 10, but that's me.
I agree, zeros aren't justified, but perhaps a 3,4,5, or 6 would be. Also, looking at the last 24 hours, we'd probably agree there are going to be more 0's, than if we were to look at the games first 24 hours, simply because people are fed up with the title at this point.
My point is, the people who graded the game zero, obviously do not think the game is that atrocious, but they do not think the game is good. Either way, it would receive a poor review, these losers just decided to give the game the lowest review they could, which is not fair. But regardless of what score they gave the game, the review would still be negative.
When I heard this story, Daemaro, I got very upset. I think it's crazy that they lost their money because they didn't get just ONE point on metacritic. this is part of the reason I hate the metacritic system as developers will use it as leverage. Lots of people lost their jobs and future projects were ruined because they weren't paid what they were due.
A sad day for gamers everywhere... especially when you look at the commercial success Fallout New Vegas was.
Which is your opinion. Which is fine, everyone is allowed to have an opinion. That's the beauty of metacritic, it's the sum of everyones opinion. And you would think, even if so many bad reviews were given because of the connection problems a day after release, if the game was well recieved, it's good reviews would have overshadowed them by now.
My point is I guess, is MetaCritic is a completely valid way of seeing the publics opinion about Diablo 3, and it's not good. Try to invalidate the score all you want, but the score is valid and it will stick.
I didnt realize the "Public" was just a paltry 1000 people...... (im actually willing to bet if you added up all of the forum haters, the metacritic bombers, etc, you wouldent even be able to pull together 10k unique people, reality, its a bitch, aint it?)
Last time I checked, thats not even 1% of the people who bought D3 LAST WEEK, and around .0001% of the total user base.
One day, prolly 6 months from now, the bleary eyed haters will come to the realization that for all thier bluster, D3 is a smashing success.
Personally, in 2-3-ish years, when an expansion drops, and sells 6 million units right on day one, I will be taking holidays from work, so I can play the expo, and of course laugh myself to tears at the mindless haters, and thier deluded reality.
Here, posted a matter of hours ago. And while the article doesn't speak to whether individuals are enjoying the game or not, it is safe to assume that if they were, they'd still be playing. But I am sure you'll find a way to dismiss this article with your rhetoric,
http://www.cinemable...rics-44420.html
From the article, "Simply put, both Gametrics and Xfire are both reporting close to a 65% drop-off rate of the player base from Diablo III. . . a third source has jumped into the picture affirming that the player base is indeed dropping off fast."
Right, we agree on that point. I, personally, don't see D3 as much below a 5 (I'd personally give it around a 7, much the same as what I'd have given D2 on launch, coincidentally). It has issues, but to vote that you feel D3 is a "below average" game is just being ig'nant if you know what I'm saying. Once you venture below a 5 you fall into the realm of games which have severe issues that really make it unplayable, moving down to the lowest rating (which to me indicates a game that is completely unplayable).
I'm going to temper that by saying that, in general, I can't think of a game that I've played that I would have ever given lower than a 5 anyway. I have not played a game which has given me so little enjoyment and so much grief that I must uninstall it immediately. I'm sure there are a small handful of people for whom D3 was like that, but I'm pretty sure that's the same for any game.
Also @ XFire thing, there was a thread about that. XFire causes D3 to crash, it's a documented bug. So of course XFire is going to report a massive dropoff for D3. If you're running XFire you probably don't have a stable D3 experience, and if you want to play D3 stably you're going to uninstall XFire (and consequently they're not going to aggregate that data).
I have no clue about Gametrics, but I do know that XFire is a totally meaningless metric on the subject because of the bug.
EDIT
I also disagree with ANYONE who would give the game a 0 at this point, after playing it for two months. That, again, is simply blind hatred and lashing out over unmet expectations. It's not an unbiased review. It's an outright dismissal of anything that could have been construed as positive in favor of INTERNET RAAAAAAAAGGGGEEEEE.
EDIT 2
LOL @ Internet Cafe statistics. Is that a sample that's even indicative of gamers? I mean I realize it's a way to get a big sample quickly, but isn't it reasonable to think that most D3 players are *not* playing in Internet Cafes? I'm from the US, so Internet Cafes really aren't a cultural thing here, and I understand they're more popular elsewhere, so I ask partially out of ignorance. But part of me feels like the demographic that Internet Cafes cater to are probably people who are more interested in The Sims than Diablo.
First off, you have no idea if Diablo 3 was a "smashing success" or not. Let's look at the numbers. Yes, it sold 7 million copies over the first 24 hours of sale. A game this highly anticipated, it's not really a surprise. Even then, you have no idea what the production costs of the game were, how much revenue was actually profit from those 7 million copies, or how much the game is making after initial sale. If independent sources are reporting a 65% drop of the player base, and Activision Blizzard touted that the game would provide sustainable profit through real money transactions, then how much money are they making if no one is using the auction house? No doubt the game sold well and is still doing pretty good, but i'm highly concerned with the amount of players that just aren't playing anymore. And to be honest, until Act/Blizz releases profit numbers from sales and real money transactions, which isn't even likely they will ever do so, we will not ever know how much this game has made or is making. Enjoy the game, no one is telling you not to, I'm not even saying it's a bad game. Point is, players are not playing anymore, and that's not good for a Blizzard game.
And about the metacritic score, just give up that argument. Saying the Diablo 3 score is invalid is like saying the score is invalid for EVERY game. Again, you can think highly of the game, but that doesn't mean that others have to also.