Revenge of the Metacritics: Diablo III Getting Review-Bombed

[zinho73]

I'm against always online (though Diablo III and that kind of game in general don't interest me), but Metacritic bombing is just dumb. Review scores have always been pretty irrelevant to me, but now user reviews in general on sites like Metacritic and Amazon have lost all their credibility.

I found them really useful, much more than professional reviews. The Escapist review, for example, fails to say that several of the monk weapon animations are not in the game and that the game still has a lot of game-breaking issues.

The game was so unplayable that we had to wait to see professional reviews, because even them could not play it. Also, the professional review is still incomplete, as some key aspects of the game are not even implemented, like PVP and the real money AH.

If it was a minor company, we could forgive some of it, but Blizzard spent 10 years on a flawed product.

User reviews are a great indicator of public reaction to the game. Professional reviewers have the obligation to, regardless of the score, give a fair assessment of the game, and they frequently fail to do that. A User review must express that one user very particular opinion - and the metacritic zeros send a very clear message in this regard.

Let's be honest. The game is good but it is overpriced and the always online stuff is terrible from a consumer point of view - even if it worked flawless at launch. Let´s see a quick rundown of the current problems with the game:

1. My single player game lags (and my internet is fine);
2. The monk animations are not there;
3. I am occasionally kicked out of my game (still);
4. I cannot do PVP;
5. My save progress was erased last night;
6. Achievements do not work;
7. The shield game-breaking bug is still in effect;
8. Logging in is much better but still not always possible (and it will never be).

Also, some design decisions makes the game boring as hell at the beginning for some(locked normal difficulty, no stats allocation and very few skills to work with). Things do pick up later with more skills to play with, but once again, Blizzard is offering less choices to us.

This does not look like a finished product to me, specially not one from Blizzard. It is not the end of the world and Blizzard will probably fix all those things in record time (we hope), but if a zero score means an unfinished, unplayable game I would say that's exactly the experience that some players are having with the game.

 

[lowhat]

The difference is Diablo is a single player game with a multiplayer component. So, why should I be always online for a function I will never use? Why should I have to restart my single player campaign three times just because their servers are shitty? There is no justification good enough to excuse it. It is an inherently broken aspect of the game.

Anyway, I see two good things coming out of this. One is that more people will be aware of the broken aspects of Diablo III before they consider dropping 60-100 nonrefundable dollars on it. Knowledge is the best weapon against consumer-hating tactics like this.

Two, is that it will most likely weaken the strong publisher support of Metacritic, so then hard-working developers don't get cheated out of bonuses for getting an 84 instead of an 85.

I think your problem is that you dont understand what diablo 3 is. Diablo 3 is NOT a single player game. Diablo 3 is a multiplayer game, period.

'

No it's not. There's no real argument here, you're just simply wrong.

If there's a single player function, and the levels are designed around single players, it's a single player game. That makes always-online inexcusable.

Except there isn't a single player function. There's a solo function. You can choose to play D3 without anyone else, much like you can choose to play WoW without anyone else. This does not make it a single player game.

The difference is I can say I want no one in my game in Diablo III. "Solo Function" Just means Single Player. Diablo III isn't an MMO.

Except you have to be online to play that single player mode. I don't mean you need an internet connection so they can authenticate you Assassins Creed style. You literally have to be online because the vast majority of the game is on a server, not your computer. D3 is the closest you can get to an MMO without actually bein an MMO.

Once again, solo play.

And that is why Diablo III is broken to me. There is no justifiable reason to be online to play single player. Having most of the content on the server is just more anti-consumer, drm bullshit.
That it is on the server doesn't mean it's not a single player game, it just means Blizzard made an incredibly stupid decision.

Alternatively, the fact that Diablo 3 is basically a form of slot machine probably means that in order for the RMAH to not be illegal in many areas, Blizzard has to be able to prove a number of things regarding the drop rates to local gaming commissions. I believe that Korea forced Blizzard to remove the RMAH for this very reason.

Why people continue to spout this "it's a single player game" idiocy is something I'll likely never understand, it doesn't really matter whether it's single player or not, it's online only, end of story. Businesses have the right to make their products the way they want them to be, just as you have the right to not buy their product. If enough people don't buy it, they either change the product, or go out of business. This whole nerdraging going on over this makes me wish there had been an internet during the transition from horses to horseless carriages, would have been so funny to read the rage.

 

[zefiris]

ry. Businesses have the right to make their products the way they want them to be

Correct. And any sane person understands that customers have a right to not only avoid buying, but also complain about flawed products, particularly when they could encourage other companies to copy the flawed practice.

As simple as that. Please understand that you will have to deal with people criticizing things when a company screws up. If that makes your butt sore because you feel with the company for some reason, I suggest either lube, or avoiding metacritic.

Face it: A lot of people do not like what Blizzard did. Diablo III is catching flak for many different reasons, all of them legitimate. It's not just the DRM, it's that it is an unfinished game.

Quite frankly, they deserve the review bombing. From a neutral point of view, you absolutely cannot condemn these reviews. They are simply correct.

had been an internet during the transition from horses to horseless carriages, would have been so funny to read the rage.

Wow. You're serious. I cannot believe that you're truly so ignorant.

You are aware that in ye olden times, people had this thing called "mail", right? A number of companies actually got buried with mail when they did particularly bad things. Oddly, they changed their nonsense quickly after that happened.

See, the internet doesn't magically create "nerd rage". The internet just creates fanboy rage, such as yours.

 

[axlryder]

It's just a bunch of whiny cunts who are unfairly reviewing a game because of a poor release. They reflect badly on the community and make us look like a bunch of children. IMO

Children don't disagree with bad practices or unnecessary technical problems, they just enjoy the gaems and eat pogos.

Pfft, zero bombing a game that clearly is not as bad as the absolute worst there is (which is what would actually warrant a 0) on a review site is acting like a child, i.e., kicking and screaming. A ton of people were reviewing the LAUNCH, not the game itself. That's fucking stupid. Knock a few points off for the DRM, fine, but don't write zero without having even played the game (as a LOT of people clearly did).

 

[zombieshark6666]

It's just a bunch of whiny cunts who are unfairly reviewing a game because of a poor release. They reflect badly on the community and make us look like a bunch of children. IMO

Children don't disagree with bad practices or unnecessary technical problems, they just enjoy the gaems and eat pogos.

Pfft, zero bombing a game that does NOT deserve to be zero bombed on a review site is acting like a child, i.e., kicking and screaming. People are reviewing the LAUNCH, not the game itself. That's fucking stupid. Knock a few points off for the DRM, fine, but don't write zero without having even played the game (as a LOT of people clearly did).

I don't disagree necessarily, but to each their own criteria. Just because of the physics, I don't think Shift 2 deserves more than a 2/10, frankly. If the rest is fine and one thing makes the whole experience awful, I'm fine with a terrible score. I'm always more angry at "pro" reviews that give great scores not matter what. Users don't have to be objective.

 

[axlryder]

It's just a bunch of whiny cunts who are unfairly reviewing a game because of a poor release. They reflect badly on the community and make us look like a bunch of children. IMO

Children don't disagree with bad practices or unnecessary technical problems, they just enjoy the gaems and eat pogos.

Pfft, zero bombing a game that does NOT deserve to be zero bombed on a review site is acting like a child, i.e., kicking and screaming. People are reviewing the LAUNCH, not the game itself. That's fucking stupid. Knock a few points off for the DRM, fine, but don't write zero without having even played the game (as a LOT of people clearly did).

I don't disagree necessarily, but to each their own criteria. Just because of the physics, I don't think Shift 2 deserves more than a 2/10, frankly. If the rest is fine and one thing makes the whole experience awful, I'm fine with a terrible score. I'm always more angry at "pro" reviews that give great scores not matter what. Users don't have to be objective.

You're right, they don't have to be objective, but I still think it makes them look like whiny children. Thus my initial post. Personally, I was dissatisfied with almost every aspect of this game, but I like to think operating on a knee-jerk reaction and scoring the equivalent of "worst thing ever" is really unfair to the developers.

 

[Tomeran]

I agree that some proffessional reviewers arent proffessional at all.
I agree that Diablo 3 had major launch issues and that having to stay online while playing single player sucks.
But that's about it.

I found Diablo 3 to be quite the good game, and the 3.3 user rating again shows that metacritic is unreliable. If the ME3 incident didnt proove it to me, this pretty much sealed the deal.

 

[Alterego-X]

Metacritic is a good indicator of which games managed to massively piss off their audience, and which didn't.

It doesn't need to be more than that.

 

[Elamdri]

Always on DRM doesn't mean what you think it does. It's not effective. Assassins Creed 2 had it. It was emulated, and cracked. In fact, it's extremely unlikely that you could make a piece of successful always on DRM, and any failed attempt makes that version less valuable than the pirated one.

Now, I've got reasonably good net, but my Assassins Creed 2 crashes every hour or so, thanks to failed server checks. Which is unacceptable. Which doesn't affect pirates.

I think people should actually understand how pirated copies of games work before praising DRM.

There are different types of DRM. Assassin's Creed DRM was just to check with a server every once in a while to make sure that the game was legit.

In contrast, Diablo 3's DRM is part of the entire game. Almost all of the game is handled server side, the program on your computer is just a client.

In order to pirate that, you need to set up a emulated private server that does everything the official Blizzard servers do. Not impossible, and I'm sure there are enough pirates out there that will do it, but what it does do is keep the rank and file plebs from pirating as well.

Hell, eventually I think all games are going to be handled the way On-Live is handled, where you purchase a game license and then stream the entire game over a remote server.

 

[Spearmaster]

The game works great now, saying its a failure because of a rocky first few hours is like cancelling your internet/cable for good because it doesn't magically hook its self up the split second you order it, people don't do that, why do it with D3...maybe the DRM issue? Having to be online to play a game is nothing new. Heard of an MMO? What about all the multiplayer games people enjoy online only? Those must be horrible to, go bomb them. I do feel for the people out in the sticks that don't have reliable internet, I was one of them for years it sucks but to all the other people complaining about the always online when they are always online anyway...Dig in your pockets and actually buy a PC game for once in your life.

I say that because I personally know people like that, they do exist and will bash a game because they cant DL it and play for free, sorry for outing all you pirates out there (not really)

I have no problem with a game company requiring authentication to play a game, I also don't have a problem if you refuse to buy it on those grounds. I DO have a problem with people that are whining about having to be online that say they wont support the game giving it bad reviews based on that or any false reason they can come up with, Especially when a lot of those people are gonna be playing and enjoying the game in a few weeks anyway when it stops being "cool" to bash D3 for being online.

The difference is Diablo is a single player game with a multiplayer component. So, why should I be always online for a function I will never use? Why should I have to restart my single player campaign three times just because their servers are shitty? There is no justification good enough to excuse it. It is an inherently broken aspect of the game.

Anyway, I see two good things coming out of this. One is that more people will be aware of the broken aspects of Diablo III before they consider dropping 60-100 nonrefundable dollars on it. Knowledge is the best weapon against consumer-hating tactics like this.

Two, is that it will most likely weaken the strong publisher support of Metacritic, so then hard-working developers don't get cheated out of bonuses for getting an 84 instead of an 85.

Sorry I would have replied to your reply sooner but I was busy playing Diablo 3 in which I haven't had any of the problems people are complaining about and I am enjoying the hell out of it. The only consumer hating tactics are the ones performed by the people unfairly bombing this game and and trying keep people from enjoying a good fun Diablo experience.

The always online only seems to be more of a game feature than a problem for me because it makes joining games or friends joining my game easy plus the auction house can only function online to sell and buy items from other players without spamming in the server room chat or creating the "trading perfect skulls for perfect rubys" games and standing in town for 3 hours waiting like in Diablo 2 but nobody wants to look at the benefit of having all the online stuff.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Metacritic review bombing: Yet another ineffective way to show you don't like one thing about an otherwise decent game, lack the cognitive power to put your words into intelligent discourse and thus resort to lashing out at a developer who made a mistake on server loads.
I will not be dragged into the DRM discussion, nor the always-online discussion. Just because it seems that a large portion of the vocal Escapist users aren't interested in discussion, but rather only care if you agree with their opinion. If not, you're apparently an idiot who should stop playing games. I love how superior and ego-ridden "gamers" are today. As if being a gamer and having a negative opinion about most big publishers somehow validates your supremacy...

 

[bootz]

I"d say issues aside it deserves about an 8.5 . The skills system is bonked,ie. my barbarian can 2 hit bosses on normal. and imo the rare drop rate is too high. I've gotten 3 rares in one trash mob pack. The game play itself is pretty fun and being able to jump on your friends games anytime is worth being always online. The graphics are meh, warcraft 3 looked better.

 

[Alterego-X]

You know, saying all THESE things about people who negatively voted on a game...

fucking stupid.

bunch of whiny cunts

acting like a child

... is way closer to kicking and screaming, than the act of the negative voting itself. You don't like their exact methods of voting? You think that they should fairly analyze every element of the game, and compare it to others, instead of just voting based on an emotional first impression? Fine. Different methods, I guess. But it doesn't make you more mature than them, neither more calm or level-headed.

Acting agressively and offensively, is far more likely to portray us negatively, than any kind of poll usage.

For all I know, the zerobombers can be all knowledgeable gamers concerned about what this DRM represents, who decided to create bad press for the game months ago based on their ideological reasons, and strategically waited until now, while you are the one who is smashing his keyboard and foaming from the mouth in a knee-jerk reaction to their action. It's hard to tell, since all of us are just interacting through pushing buttons, but so far, you are giving me more material to work with.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Here's the be all and end all for this as far as I can see. If you do not like the DRM, or the online requirement, or the direction Blizzard took the game. Do not buy it, do not play it and leave those who want to play it alone.

But doesn't "leave those alone" just mean "don't criticize Blizzard?" I mean, are you being harassed or something?

Blizzard does not owe any of you a thing and none of you owe Blizzard anything either. All the posts I've seen about this come down to "I want this game how I want it."

Well of course I want the game how I want it. And I'm going to say so. That's what we do. We talk about stuff.

Guess what? It's not your game. Blizzard announced a long time ago about the online requirement, the real money Ah and all that. They publically said it was going to be hell first few days. You have absolutely no reason to complain...

I would never kick you in the balls, but if I did, I would give you a warning first. I assume you still object to being kicked 'squa' in the nootz'. The point I'm trying to make is it's nice that we were given fair warning, but it still sucks ass.

I actually commend and respect those who refuse to buy the game for the above reasons. I detest the whiney self entitled folk who think that Blizzard has to answer to them and do what they want.

edited to be less angry.. angry man is angry.

No offense, but it sounds like the only difference between the two is whether or not they criticize Blizzard.

Or you can, y'know, give the auction house and the multiplayer components the shaft. The only things Blizzard are getting from me are the occasional data packets sent to the authentication server. It's not like the RMAH is being shoved down your throat.

Not to mention that by its own setup, Diablo III is very much NOT a Pay-to-Win title. If I choose to play alone, the only competition I have to face is myself. If I ever open my game to the public, I can choose to either obsess over some complete unknown's arbitrarily better gear, or just take a chill pill, choose not to give a fuck, and keep playing.

If you're looking for an easy target to throw scorn at, I'd redirect your ire towards anyone who'll be fish enough to actually buy this or that rare set, once actual paid-for acquisitions are enabled. All I know is I won't be one of them. I won't care if someone's build strategy tells me that I absolutely need this or that piece of gear - I can either adhere to the proposed strategy or not give a damn and just go about my business.

This game has a significant multiplayer component. Many consider it the game's core appeal. It's true you don't have to play multiplayer. But the real money auction house impacts your multiplayer experience in big ways even if you never put a dime into it. You said it is not pay-to-win, but your description matches pay-to-win exactly. Diablo III is a pay-to-win title because you can buy a significant in-game advantage and bypass content by paying money.

The real money auction house affects game balance, your power relative to other players, and your ability to beat content relative to other players you interact with. It impacts the all-important sense of fair play, the satisfaction of challenge and accomplishment, and the concept of the auction house itself. It arguably guts the whole point of playing the game past the credits. There are also other design decisions which may or may not favor funneling people into the auction house over fun and convenience.

Now if none of that matters to you in a multiplayer title, that's fair enough. But I think you can see the issue doesn't disappear when you put your head in the sand. Not that you are doing that. You said it doesn't bother you and I have no reason to doubt it. But it bothers me.

Now please indulge me by letting me vent a little bit: I can't fucking believe I have to defend the concept of playing a game without fucking money involved. Can you see why I feel like the fucking last sane person on earth? Whew, I feel better. Sorry.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

The real money auction house affects game balance, your power relative to other players, and your ability to beat content relative to other players you interact with. It impacts the all-important sense of fair play, the satisfaction of challenge and accomplishment, and the concept of the auction house itself. It arguably guts the whole point of playing the game past the credits. There are also other design decisions which may or may not favor funneling people into the auction house over fun and convenience.

Now if none of that matters to you in a multiplayer title, that's fair enough. But I think you can see the issue doesn't disappear when you put your head in the sand. Not that you are doing that. You said it doesn't bother you and I have no reason to doubt it. But it bothers me.

Now please indulge me by letting me vent a little bit: I can't fucking believe I have to defend the concept of playing a game without fucking money involved. Can you see why I feel like the fucking last sane person on earth? Whew, I feel better. Sorry.

Fair enough, but I'm curious to hear why you're bothered by other people having more proficient gear. See, D3 bases everything offensive on the value of your equipped weapon. You're playing as a Witch Doctor? Then find the cudgel or the hand axe with the biggest stats you can early on in the game, and you'll basically clean house. The Offense and Defense stats are virtually the only ones that matter. Everything else - even the uniques' sometimes fairly jaw-dropping stats - feels secondary in nature.

Considering that, wouldn't your personal spoils be enough? The game is never unfair as to leave you with improper weapons in a particularly hard stretch. Seeing as every build Blizz has planned for (if you don't use Elective Mode) is designed to be functional, even entry level spells like the Zombie Dogs are going to be relevant sixty levels down the line.

So when the only things that really matter are how much you can hit and how much damage you can soak, obsessing over some overpriced item in the RMAH just feels a little idiotic to me.

In a sense, D3 is only going to be Pay-to-Win if you put it in your mind that you *have* to be the alpha dog on the team, the one doing the most damage. It doesn't help that the inventory screen shows you your character's DPS - further accentuating the WoW-ish dispositions they'd like their players to take.

Just focus on upping these two base values. Your own item drops will suffice. If, on the other hand, you're trying to build some guy for PVP (which I have no idea if it is even possible in D3), then you might be in for a little more finagling.

The antidote for this is obvious: play with friends. Everyone has their own drops, but all items you discard from your inventory are visible to all. If your friends are the least bit thoughtful, they might run into something that'll work well for your class or your build.

 

[Aeshi]

But doesn't "leave those alone" just mean "don't criticize Blizzard?" I mean, are you being harassed or something?

Harassed? Have you seen half the Diablo III threads on this forum? seems like every 3rd post is either a spambot impressionist going on about how good some similar indie game is or "LOL ERROR 37 ENJOY YOUR GAME SHEEP."

Well of course I want the game how I want it. And I'm going to say so. That's what we do. We talk about stuff.

This'd hold more merit if half the complaints weren't just "We want Diablo III to be Diablo II again!"

No offense, but it sounds like the only difference between the two is whether or not they criticize Blizzard.

The difference is one acknowledges that other people can still enjoy the game while the other basically goes "Well I'm not going to have fun playing this, so I don't want anyone else to enjoy it either."

Now please indulge me by letting me vent a little bit: I can't fucking believe I have to defend the concept of playing a game without fucking money involved. Can you see why I feel like the fucking last sane person on earth? Whew, I feel better. Sorry.

If you don't like the Auction House then don't use it, and if you're so adhered to the concept of "I got this gear by winning glorified dice rolls" being somehow better than "I got this gear by buying it" that you refuse to play with anyone who does the latter then just roll a Hardcore, they can't access the RMAH and have their own separate servers.