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."
I'll field that one. Some players see beating the game once as the end of the line. There are actually players out there who beat Normal difficulty mode and stopped playing because that's all they really wanted. Sure they didn't get as much value per dollar as we did, but their satisfaction of the game is not any less valid.
Truth is the same thing happens to nearly any game. The new-ness wears off and players stop playing as often or at all. WoW players do it all the time, the first month (give or take) of an expansion sees a huge influx of new and old players then people beat the content they want and move on. At this point you see a fairly steep decline in players until the numbers balance out to where you see how many people are playing on a fairly consistent basis.
I feel the same thing happened with Diablo 2, as I know I played that game on and off over the 11 years its content patches came out.
The majority of people who go review something are people who are either greatly pleased or greatly displeased (more likely) in the first place. It's not an accurate system by a long shot. Look at the total scoring:
Positive: 1305
Mixed: 252
Negative: 2497
Any way you slice that it's absurd. Rating a game a 10 is equally as ridiculous. It's purely an opinion driven system and a LOT of it base on hate or fanboyism. User rating systems always end up like this. Does that mean opinions aren't valid? No. But they should in no way be viewed in a statistical way like this.
If they wanted an actual solid rating, they'd have to somehow choose about 4000 random people, and then contact them all via phone, email, any possible way. Expecting people to go onto a site and rate something in a fair constructive way isn't likely to happen at either end of the spectrum. I haven't even went and rated it.
Critic, website, magazine reviews are always a little skewed towards the up usually as well, but you'd probably get a more accurate rating if you took a few points off of that scoring. Those people, admittedly some may be a little biased, are qualified in rating games. That's all they do. They get paid to do it. They've played countless games to compare it to, they are more capable of looking at it objectively because it's not a emotional debacle for them like it is a lot of us fans. The whole rating system is skewed anyways though. Remember when a 5/10 used to be "pretty good"? Now anything below 7.5 is considered garbage basically.
Meta critic also draws from a lot of sources that don't even use a scale of 1-100 system or even a scale of 1-10. Giant Bomb for example gave Diablo 3 a 5/5 stars. How do you even equate that sort of system into a scale of 1-100? Obviously 5/5 = 100 but what about a 4.5 stars? It's not as simple as doing the math either. When you're rating a game on a scale from 1-5 and 1-10 there is a LOT less wiggle room on your choices.
Rating systems are absolute trash.
The game has lost a lot of it's initial hype and with that a lot have stopped playing. A lot of old D2 fans have ended up disappointed. There are still quite a few people playing though and anyone who got over 60 hours of playtime and enjoyment I would say they at least got what they paid for. D2 was a great game but personally I'm playing D3 about the same amount. I play in bursts then take a break for a day or so. Some people were going to end up disappointed, that was inevitable.
The game doesn't require longevity or to captivate your attention for months and months. It's not subscription based, it doesn't need to keep you feeling like you HAVE to renew to enjoy it more. It's astonishing so many people still play D2 so much. I guarantee D3 will have that same sort of fanbase though, it may not be the same people that played D2 but it will have die hard fans who love it and play it an insane amount.
D2 has more flexibility in that area at the moment because it's well known, it runs on any system really easy nowadays, it offers LAN, it offers offline play, and it offers PvP. D3 is fresh out of the womb, is still receiving lots of patches and changes and we don't even have PvP yet, I think it's a little early to be crying foul.
That's just my opinion though, take it or leave it.
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.
I would like to make the argument that every game score is invalid. A number score tells you nothing about the game. What matters are the merits of the review and not the number the reviewer gave it. For example, dynasty warriors games are fairly average by any critic measure, but there are lots of fans of the series and people who will play every version and never stop. The game isn't for everyone, but if you love it, you'd score it high, if you don't then you'd score it low. Those scores have nothing to do with the actual merits of the game, but the reviews would tell you what the good and bad points are and if it's something you should be interested in.
Yes, I'm still quite upset about the Fallout issue and it really fuels my disdain for scoring systems. I agree it's a good quick number to get a feel on if a game or movie might be overall worth avoiding, but the problem is that people will use the score and ONLY the score to judge things by sometimes. I've seen people post "oh it only got a 78, guess I'll avoid", which is really a shame, they might be missing out on a game they'd normally like just because of the number.
It also really saddens me when a really well written review is scalded by a community for a 'lower than they expected' score when they didn't take the time to actually read the review or why the score was what it was.
Meta critic also draws from a lot of sources that don't even use a scale of 1-100 system or even a scale of 1-10. Giant Bomb for example gave Diablo 3 a 5/5 stars. How do you even equate that sort of system into a scale of 1-100? Obviously 5/5 = 100 but what about a 4.5 stars? It's not as simple as doing the math either. When you're rating a game on a scale from 1-5 and 1-10 there is a LOT less wiggle room on your choices.
Rating systems are absolute trash.
This pretty much sums up my feelings regarding Metacritic and its ilk.
Im still enjoying it but everytime i try to do a farmrun through act3 ( or any other act...doesnt matter ) i get tired when i get my 5 buffs. Trying to level up my monk now ( i got barb/wd/dh ) but seriously, act2 just kills me when i get there, i f*kin hate it :<
Just over 200 hours it seems (the majority on my Monk: 177 hours there), and I'm still enjoying it. Sure, I'm not playing all day every day, but I don't need to. I pace myself, don't burn myself out, and it works great.
D3 is fresh out of the womb, is still receiving lots of patches and changes and we don't even have PvP yet, I think it's a little early to be crying foul.
which reminds of my opinion about the 'D3 is dying' thing. A 2 months old game can't die, especially when Blizzard didn't implement all its planned aspects yet. There's badly hoaxes about an expansion, damn it! =P
Besides, 200h is NOT a lot of time? I have other favorite games I didn't play that much, especially in less than 2 months.
Yep, still loving it. Not everyone is going to feel the same. You got your money's worth if you gave the game 200+ hours of your life.
This more or less. I'm still enjoying it quite a bit.
I didn't play D2 at launch as much as I played D3. It was only later in D2's life that me and my friends played it pretty hardcore. After a couple patches. At some point I'll stop playing D3 until they release a couple patches and then go back and play it pretty hardcore again. That's how the series works for me and my friends.
i still playing but i think that the game will be much more entertaining the future when they implement pvp, new artisans and much more stuff in the game.
Just for fun and out of my own interest. I wanted to get a more realistic look at the Meta-Critic user written reviews, so I decided to add my own values to positive/mixed/negative reviews. Here are the total amount of these reviews first!
Positive: 1305 Mixed: 252 Negative: 2497
which is a total of 4054 reviews.
Now, instead of the such polarizing reviews found on Meta-Critic that are typically bunched around the extremes of 0/10 and 10/10, if we assign a value to a positive score, mixed score, and negative score, we can begin to get a more realistic picture of what the ratings really are, so lets try that!
Lets say for the positive reviews, we assign a generous 9 out of 10 to these reviews, as very few would think the game deserves a 10 out of 10.
For mixed reviews, lets assign a score out of 5 out of 10, as 5 out of 10 would be best described as mediocre or 'okay'.
For negative reviews, lets assign a value of 3 out of 10; since this seems about the lowest any sensible individual would grade this game.
Now if we multiple the amount of reviews by the score out of 10 assigned to the reviews, here are the sums;
Positive: 1305 reviews * rating of 9 = 11745 total
Mixed: 252 reviews * rating of 5 = 1260 total
Negative: 2597 reviews * rating of 3 = 7491 total
A total of 20,496 points, now lets divide this by the total number of reviews, 4054 and ...
we are given an adjusted score rating of 5.05 out of 10.
Does this seem a more accurate portrayal of the communities reviews on the website than the current 3.9?
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 think way too many people are expecting limitless content from a game where you only pay a 1 time fee. As for the majaority of the haters, I see most have barely touch inferno content outside of Act 1. While there have been a few like the OP that says they've basically done everything, then great, you've gotten your $60 worth and probably more since i'm sure u've made more than $60 on the RMAH especially with facerolling gear.
Second I don't think the game is any different than what people are expecting, you really do have to ask yourself why you are playing in the first place, maybe why you want to maximize your character.
First for myself I wanted to get geard up to beat diablo, now that I've done that, I leveled up a few other character to try to play with different builds, ie whirlwind barb, melee wizard etc.
Then now I just like maximizing my toon, to try to rolled through farming.
Second if u're spent over 100 hours a month, and surprise u ran out of content, then u're really expecting too much. There's plenty of games you've purchased that you probably play less than 20 hours worth and careless. Fact people are getting this riled up means u've already enjoyed the game far more than you've realized.
And really pace yourself is really the best option, go get some sun, hang out with friends. Lot of people that I see that have quit playing had really burnt themselves out the first two weeks. And drop off is really quite natural, even with anything, when you first have it you enjoy it alot, then overtime you'll enjoy it less and less.
The real problem i feel is that people who sit down and play this game in bursts, as the majority of positive posters here (as far as i can tell) is doing - Do not play enough to get deep enough to find the problems.
The problems with D3, is not being burnt out. The problem is that once the hype and all the shinies (read: Item hunt and playing with friends), you start analyzing the game. And that's where it gets nasty.
So, what you're saying is that you must play "at least X hours per week, and not in small play sessions" but that burnout (aka playing too much) is not one of the problems with D3? Your statements seem outright contradictory to me. And I'm not attempting to say that D3 doesn't have problems (you can check my post history, I definitely have issues with the game and freely admit it) but I'm not going to blow smoke up anyone's ass and say that people who played 100 hours in the first week alone aren't contributing to their own dissatisfaction.
I stopped playing after about 200 hours spread across a DH, M, and W. I hit a3 inferno on my wizard and farmed a1 for about 10 hours, but itemization in this game is so poor it's just not enjoyable.
I'd say I got my money's worth out of D3, though. 200 hours puts it up there with Mass Effect, Skyrim, Baldur's Gate, and WoW.
I've played +250 hours, and I still play pretty often.
However... I can't stand the "end game". It's so tedious and aggravating <_<
I feel like all of my level 60 characters spend more money on repairs than they gain from all of the crappy drops,
and I rarely ever die! (I'm farming act 2 inferno, progressing through act 3 slowly)
I've just been making new characters on Hardcore, to keep myself entertained.
playing for so many hours can burn you out on just about anything
it's probably a good idea to just play games (any) an hour a day at most then do something else. get some hobbies that don't involve a computer or device of any kind.
I've played +250 hours, and I still play pretty often.
However... I can't stand the "end game". It's so tedious and aggravating <_<
I feel like all of my level 60 characters spend more money on repairs than they gain from all of the crappy drops,
and I rarely ever die! (I'm farming act 2 inferno, progressing through act 3 slowly)
I've just been making new characters on Hardcore, to keep myself entertained.
So, unfortunately Blizzard can't normalize the difficulty for every individual where they don't feel its too easy but difficult enough for it to be satisfying when you do beat it. Also since 2 weeks ago, tanking doesn't cost you anything if u're not dying. They removed durability the retarded durability lost in tanking.
This poster is the prototypical hater I've seen, they haven't beaten the game, they also spent alot of time on it, yes 200+ hours in 2 months is a lot, considering 160 hours is a full time job per month and they are still bad at the game.
Well that happens we can't satisfy everyone, make it too easy everyone finishes and people complain its too hard, make it hard, people complain its too hard, and no matter how hard you make it, there would be those pro gamers that will still destroy all the content.
As for people that say there aren't many viable builds, well they just haven't looked. There are many different builds that works best for each boss, whether u're soloing or group play. Different acts works best with different builds, different difficulty level as well, what works in Hell might not work in Inferno, etc.
People also forget that not only do they need to be good actually physically playing the game, if you're not spending your gold wisely and wisely putting things up in AH, you're not maximizing the game. Sure there are people that don't like this aspect, but its part of the game, part of what you signed up for.
Is anyone who has played this game 200+ hours still enjoying this game? I've leveled every class to 60, beat Diablo on Inferno (softcore), and have grinded about ~80% achievement points (3,200 total). But man, I don't know if you could pay me to play another hour.
Just for fun and out of my own interest. I wanted to get a more realistic look at the Meta-Critic user written reviews, so I decided to add my own values to positive/mixed/negative reviews. Here are the total amount of these reviews first!
Positive: 1305 Mixed: 252 Negative: 2497
which is a total of 4054 reviews.
Now, instead of the such polarizing reviews found on Meta-Critic that are typically bunched around the extremes of 0/10 and 10/10, if we assign a value to a positive score, mixed score, and negative score, we can begin to get a more realistic picture of what the ratings really are, so lets try that!
Lets say for the positive reviews, we assign a generous 9 out of 10 to these reviews, as very few would think the game deserves a 10 out of 10.
For mixed reviews, lets assign a score out of 5 out of 10, as 5 out of 10 would be best described as mediocre or 'okay'.
For negative reviews, lets assign a value of 3 out of 10; since this seems about the lowest any sensible individual would grade this game.
Now if we multiple the amount of reviews by the score out of 10 assigned to the reviews, here are the sums;
Positive: 1305 reviews * rating of 9 = 11745 total
Mixed: 252 reviews * rating of 5 = 1260 total
Negative: 2597 reviews * rating of 3 = 7491 total
A total of 20,496 points, now lets divide this by the total number of reviews, 4054 and ...
we are given an adjusted score rating of 5.05 out of 10.
Does this seem a more accurate portrayal of the communities reviews on the website than the current 3.9?
I think this is a fair rating amongst Diablo players, love it or hate it. For me, after beating Inferno just a couple of weeks after release I didn't find the game very fun until I made a HC character. Now that my HC character is level 60, I am back in the same position with what feels like nothing to do, and nothing to aim for.
I'm around 216 hours and still love the game. I've almost got 1 of each 60, a hardcore at 29 and 17 (really taking my time with those...) I also have 1 I'm leveling specifically with my wife. I'm trying out all character abilities so I won't have nearly as many "WTF did he just do to me?" moments in pvp. The biggest time spender so far has been messing with gold AH and working on achievements. 2 of my 60s are close to Act 3 Inferno. I feel I would have beat Diablo Inferno a while ago had I focused on just 1 character, but I'm fickle and like bouncing around the classes. I play a lot, but this is my way of spacing the game out. I was familiar with Diablo I and II, and I wasn't expecting the game to be 100% complete at release much like the past games weren't.
All in all, my only single gripe about Diablo III has been the rubberbanding issues as my favorite character is my glass cannon demon hunter. I like knowing things can 1shot me because it forces me to hone my twitchy reaction time. I still die on my own accord, but 3/4ths of the time it's when I rubberband. Even boss fights as simple as the Butcher are really interesting when you have gear that makes pushing the enrage timer stressful in addition to even 1 single attack 1shotting you. I've come to appreciate how most boss moves have their own unique split second "wind up" animation, so I know which attacks I suddenly have half a second to smoke screen and what I need to just move out of the way. When you're undergeared, a single wasted smoke screen could mean the difference between being discipline starved or not by the time Preparation is back.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'll field that one. Some players see beating the game once as the end of the line. There are actually players out there who beat Normal difficulty mode and stopped playing because that's all they really wanted. Sure they didn't get as much value per dollar as we did, but their satisfaction of the game is not any less valid.
Truth is the same thing happens to nearly any game. The new-ness wears off and players stop playing as often or at all. WoW players do it all the time, the first month (give or take) of an expansion sees a huge influx of new and old players then people beat the content they want and move on. At this point you see a fairly steep decline in players until the numbers balance out to where you see how many people are playing on a fairly consistent basis.
I feel the same thing happened with Diablo 2, as I know I played that game on and off over the 11 years its content patches came out.
Positive: 1305
Mixed: 252
Negative: 2497
Any way you slice that it's absurd. Rating a game a 10 is equally as ridiculous. It's purely an opinion driven system and a LOT of it base on hate or fanboyism. User rating systems always end up like this. Does that mean opinions aren't valid? No. But they should in no way be viewed in a statistical way like this.
If they wanted an actual solid rating, they'd have to somehow choose about 4000 random people, and then contact them all via phone, email, any possible way. Expecting people to go onto a site and rate something in a fair constructive way isn't likely to happen at either end of the spectrum. I haven't even went and rated it.
Critic, website, magazine reviews are always a little skewed towards the up usually as well, but you'd probably get a more accurate rating if you took a few points off of that scoring. Those people, admittedly some may be a little biased, are qualified in rating games. That's all they do. They get paid to do it. They've played countless games to compare it to, they are more capable of looking at it objectively because it's not a emotional debacle for them like it is a lot of us fans. The whole rating system is skewed anyways though. Remember when a 5/10 used to be "pretty good"? Now anything below 7.5 is considered garbage basically.
Meta critic also draws from a lot of sources that don't even use a scale of 1-100 system or even a scale of 1-10. Giant Bomb for example gave Diablo 3 a 5/5 stars. How do you even equate that sort of system into a scale of 1-100? Obviously 5/5 = 100 but what about a 4.5 stars? It's not as simple as doing the math either. When you're rating a game on a scale from 1-5 and 1-10 there is a LOT less wiggle room on your choices.
Rating systems are absolute trash.
The game has lost a lot of it's initial hype and with that a lot have stopped playing. A lot of old D2 fans have ended up disappointed. There are still quite a few people playing though and anyone who got over 60 hours of playtime and enjoyment I would say they at least got what they paid for. D2 was a great game but personally I'm playing D3 about the same amount. I play in bursts then take a break for a day or so. Some people were going to end up disappointed, that was inevitable.
The game doesn't require longevity or to captivate your attention for months and months. It's not subscription based, it doesn't need to keep you feeling like you HAVE to renew to enjoy it more. It's astonishing so many people still play D2 so much. I guarantee D3 will have that same sort of fanbase though, it may not be the same people that played D2 but it will have die hard fans who love it and play it an insane amount.
D2 has more flexibility in that area at the moment because it's well known, it runs on any system really easy nowadays, it offers LAN, it offers offline play, and it offers PvP. D3 is fresh out of the womb, is still receiving lots of patches and changes and we don't even have PvP yet, I think it's a little early to be crying foul.
That's just my opinion though, take it or leave it.
I would like to make the argument that every game score is invalid. A number score tells you nothing about the game. What matters are the merits of the review and not the number the reviewer gave it. For example, dynasty warriors games are fairly average by any critic measure, but there are lots of fans of the series and people who will play every version and never stop. The game isn't for everyone, but if you love it, you'd score it high, if you don't then you'd score it low. Those scores have nothing to do with the actual merits of the game, but the reviews would tell you what the good and bad points are and if it's something you should be interested in.
Yes, I'm still quite upset about the Fallout issue and it really fuels my disdain for scoring systems. I agree it's a good quick number to get a feel on if a game or movie might be overall worth avoiding, but the problem is that people will use the score and ONLY the score to judge things by sometimes. I've seen people post "oh it only got a 78, guess I'll avoid", which is really a shame, they might be missing out on a game they'd normally like just because of the number.
It also really saddens me when a really well written review is scalded by a community for a 'lower than they expected' score when they didn't take the time to actually read the review or why the score was what it was.
This pretty much sums up my feelings regarding Metacritic and its ilk.
which reminds of my opinion about the 'D3 is dying' thing. A 2 months old game can't die, especially when Blizzard didn't implement all its planned aspects yet. There's badly hoaxes about an expansion, damn it! =P
Besides, 200h is NOT a lot of time? I have other favorite games I didn't play that much, especially in less than 2 months.
This more or less. I'm still enjoying it quite a bit.
I didn't play D2 at launch as much as I played D3. It was only later in D2's life that me and my friends played it pretty hardcore. After a couple patches. At some point I'll stop playing D3 until they release a couple patches and then go back and play it pretty hardcore again. That's how the series works for me and my friends.
Positive: 1305
Mixed: 252
Negative: 2497
which is a total of 4054 reviews.
Now, instead of the such polarizing reviews found on Meta-Critic that are typically bunched around the extremes of 0/10 and 10/10, if we assign a value to a positive score, mixed score, and negative score, we can begin to get a more realistic picture of what the ratings really are, so lets try that!
Lets say for the positive reviews, we assign a generous 9 out of 10 to these reviews, as very few would think the game deserves a 10 out of 10.
For mixed reviews, lets assign a score out of 5 out of 10, as 5 out of 10 would be best described as mediocre or 'okay'.
For negative reviews, lets assign a value of 3 out of 10; since this seems about the lowest any sensible individual would grade this game.
Now if we multiple the amount of reviews by the score out of 10 assigned to the reviews, here are the sums;
Positive: 1305 reviews * rating of 9 = 11745 total
Mixed: 252 reviews * rating of 5 = 1260 total
Negative: 2597 reviews * rating of 3 = 7491 total
A total of 20,496 points, now lets divide this by the total number of reviews, 4054 and ...
we are given an adjusted score rating of 5.05 out of 10.
Does this seem a more accurate portrayal of the communities reviews on the website than the current 3.9?
Second I don't think the game is any different than what people are expecting, you really do have to ask yourself why you are playing in the first place, maybe why you want to maximize your character.
First for myself I wanted to get geard up to beat diablo, now that I've done that, I leveled up a few other character to try to play with different builds, ie whirlwind barb, melee wizard etc.
Then now I just like maximizing my toon, to try to rolled through farming.
Second if u're spent over 100 hours a month, and surprise u ran out of content, then u're really expecting too much. There's plenty of games you've purchased that you probably play less than 20 hours worth and careless. Fact people are getting this riled up means u've already enjoyed the game far more than you've realized.
And really pace yourself is really the best option, go get some sun, hang out with friends. Lot of people that I see that have quit playing had really burnt themselves out the first two weeks. And drop off is really quite natural, even with anything, when you first have it you enjoy it alot, then overtime you'll enjoy it less and less.
So, what you're saying is that you must play "at least X hours per week, and not in small play sessions" but that burnout (aka playing too much) is not one of the problems with D3? Your statements seem outright contradictory to me. And I'm not attempting to say that D3 doesn't have problems (you can check my post history, I definitely have issues with the game and freely admit it) but I'm not going to blow smoke up anyone's ass and say that people who played 100 hours in the first week alone aren't contributing to their own dissatisfaction.
I'd say I got my money's worth out of D3, though. 200 hours puts it up there with Mass Effect, Skyrim, Baldur's Gate, and WoW.
However... I can't stand the "end game". It's so tedious and aggravating <_<
I feel like all of my level 60 characters spend more money on repairs than they gain from all of the crappy drops,
and I rarely ever die! (I'm farming act 2 inferno, progressing through act 3 slowly)
I've just been making new characters on Hardcore, to keep myself entertained.
word count
it's probably a good idea to just play games (any) an hour a day at most then do something else. get some hobbies that don't involve a computer or device of any kind.
So, unfortunately Blizzard can't normalize the difficulty for every individual where they don't feel its too easy but difficult enough for it to be satisfying when you do beat it. Also since 2 weeks ago, tanking doesn't cost you anything if u're not dying. They removed durability the retarded durability lost in tanking.
This poster is the prototypical hater I've seen, they haven't beaten the game, they also spent alot of time on it, yes 200+ hours in 2 months is a lot, considering 160 hours is a full time job per month and they are still bad at the game.
Well that happens we can't satisfy everyone, make it too easy everyone finishes and people complain its too hard, make it hard, people complain its too hard, and no matter how hard you make it, there would be those pro gamers that will still destroy all the content.
As for people that say there aren't many viable builds, well they just haven't looked. There are many different builds that works best for each boss, whether u're soloing or group play. Different acts works best with different builds, different difficulty level as well, what works in Hell might not work in Inferno, etc.
People also forget that not only do they need to be good actually physically playing the game, if you're not spending your gold wisely and wisely putting things up in AH, you're not maximizing the game. Sure there are people that don't like this aspect, but its part of the game, part of what you signed up for.
I think this is a fair rating amongst Diablo players, love it or hate it. For me, after beating Inferno just a couple of weeks after release I didn't find the game very fun until I made a HC character. Now that my HC character is level 60, I am back in the same position with what feels like nothing to do, and nothing to aim for.
All in all, my only single gripe about Diablo III has been the rubberbanding issues as my favorite character is my glass cannon demon hunter. I like knowing things can 1shot me because it forces me to hone my twitchy reaction time. I still die on my own accord, but 3/4ths of the time it's when I rubberband. Even boss fights as simple as the Butcher are really interesting when you have gear that makes pushing the enrage timer stressful in addition to even 1 single attack 1shotting you. I've come to appreciate how most boss moves have their own unique split second "wind up" animation, so I know which attacks I suddenly have half a second to smoke screen and what I need to just move out of the way. When you're undergeared, a single wasted smoke screen could mean the difference between being discipline starved or not by the time Preparation is back.