2. This is a ridiculous statement, replayability is the one and only thing in D3 that is better than in D2. You get to see about 20-25% of the game on your most efficient route. In D2 the way to 99 meant that you'd have to ignore 95% of the game at all (if you went for the quickest way to 99). Also your statement is so ridiculous, you're complaining about "no variety" but at the same time you want unique boss fights? Sigh...
4. Disagree, play Torchlight and you'll see how boring it is if every 3rd item is mind-blowing. It's nice for a few hours but soon you'll just lose interest because there's no shiny rare gem to hunt for.
5. The efficiency song again. Well, if you don't like the cookie cutter builds, you have to sacrifice something, and efficiency is one thing. I don't like boring low level MP games at the moment, so I go MP10. It's slow, it's not efficient, but it's fun. It's the kind of diversity Diablo 2 never had, btw.
1. A lot of video game players are competitive in one form or another. Whether its better gear, better skills or accomplished more we (for the most part) look to one-up. If that's not the case at the very least you wish to 'progress' your character at a rate similar to those around you. Suggesting that you handicap yourself is not a fix, it's conceding to the system which for the most part does not fix any sort of long term issues at all.
2. You seem to be lost on the intended meaning of the word 'replayability' if you think it involves experiencing the same area's over and over again. Your idea of re-playability in Diablo 3 is to go from paragon level 51 to level 52. To finding that new amulet that instead of having 150 STR, 150 VIT, 30 AD, 8 IAS, 94 CD, 9% Crit has 160 STR, 160 VIT, 40 AD, 9 IAS, 100 CD, and 10% Crit. My idea of finding a new weapon in Diablo 2 was going from IK's Mace to BOTD TM . I hope your noticing the difference here in the incentive for 're playability" - it isn't about WHAT you are doing, it is about what you are doing it FOR.. and I'm fairly certain people seeing my second example are going to be a lot more motivated and excited to work towards it compared to my first. It's literally a world of difference between Diablo 2's item re playability and itemization and Diablo 3's at the moment.
5. The problem is it doesn't matter what build you play, regardless of efficiency or not they all use the exact same stats. They all look for quadfecta/trifecta gear. There is very little variance. Sure you get to cast 1 thing instead of another but that doesn't change the fact that it is literally ALL you're changing. It makes more unmotivated gameplay. In Diablo 2 if I didn't want to go the efficiency route and make a hammerdin, I could make a smiter or zealer instead and the parallels between the two builds would be akin to 1 item, the rest would be completely unique to the build. So frankly I have no idea where you're getting this idea that D2 never had that diversity. It has the diversity Diablo 3 has and more, not to mention almost every single build had different items it looked for.
Honestly man, not trying to be a dick but it sounds like you barely played Diablo 2 in the first place, or at the very most played it to beat Hell difficulty and then quit. If Diablo 2 was so lacking in diversity and so unreplayable compared to Diablo 3 then why did it have over 5+ viable builds for every single class. Why did it have over 80,000 concurrent players 10 years after it's release.