Revenge of the Metacritics: Diablo III Getting Review-Bombed
- Thread starter LiquidGrape
- Start date
I see no problem with the low ratings it's getting. If a company chooses to make an purely online game and the "online" part is non-functional for a large portion of users due to server-side problems, they have failed to deliver the product. 0/10 is a reasonable score for an unplayable game.
I myself didn't purchase the game and will not purchase the game because reliable high-speed internet is not available in my region.
I myself didn't purchase the game and will not purchase the game because reliable high-speed internet is not available in my region.
Has there been a AAA title released in the past year or so that hasn't been review bombed?
Is pretty sad really.
Is pretty sad really.
Take a look at why they're being review bombed.
Mass Effect 3 had one of the worst endings imaginable for what was three games in the making, and was badly received we're getting free DLC to make it better.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 was... well, Call of Duty. It wasn't technically reviewed bombed - those low scores are entirely accurate.
Diablo 3 was rendered entirely unplayable for over half of it's pre-order and day one purchasers. And for those that could play it, they were treated to disconnects, character deletions, lag, random server resets and extended periods of maintenance. And half of the player base hasn't even fucking tried multiplayer yet.
This wasn't review bombed: a game that is simply unplayable gets a zero.
Defending Always On DRM and Pay2Win games isn't justifiable. Blizzard are raping you, and you're not only paying them for it, you're defending them for doing it.
Anyone who bought Diablo 3 get's what they deserve.
captcha: moot point. Touché, internet, touché.
Mass Effect 3 had one of the worst endings imaginable for what was three games in the making, and was badly received we're getting free DLC to make it better.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 was... well, Call of Duty. It wasn't technically reviewed bombed - those low scores are entirely accurate.
Diablo 3 was rendered entirely unplayable for over half of it's pre-order and day one purchasers. And for those that could play it, they were treated to disconnects, character deletions, lag, random server resets and extended periods of maintenance. And half of the player base hasn't even fucking tried multiplayer yet.
This wasn't review bombed: a game that is simply unplayable gets a zero.
Defending Always On DRM and Pay2Win games isn't justifiable. Blizzard are raping you, and you're not only paying them for it, you're defending them for doing it.
Anyone who bought Diablo 3 get's what they deserve.
captcha: moot point. Touché, internet, touché.
Something just came to mind while I was reading your post. It kinda goes something like this, just replace names with Blizzard and/or Activision:Zeh Don said:
Captcha: on cloud nine. Yep, I soon will be.
Yay! Another review bombing. It does nothing but destroy the credibility of the site itself. Yeah Diablo 3 has its issues but they don't constitute a 0. I mean really, you can't wait 5 minutes to access the game. You waited longer than that to install the game so why can't you wait that little bit extra. Those connection issues constitute at most 0.5 being taken from the score. The game itself puts it well above 8 (from what I've played so far) so theres no reason for a 0 score at all.
Although review bombing sounds unwarrented (i.e. giving a 0 purely because of the fact that Blizzard are incapable of doing something that's pretty much impossible) but, despite how silly the user reviews are, the concerns are very valid.
I don't think there's much point in caring over nerdragers complaining about the servers not opening. It is pretty much unavoidable
However, things like the always online is a hindrance to the enjoyment of the game, not only to people who can't even play the game, but also to people with sub-par internet connections.
User scores are pretty much 100% meaningless as an average. You have to put them on a case by case basis. However Blizzard should pay attention to these concerns. I think they should have listened about the always-online issue. It's a strange place to be in as someone with a half-decent PC without a constant broadband connection, but there should have been some sort of comprimise. Maybe a seperate client for offline mode? It's just an idea, one that is meaningless now since the game is already released, but more should be done than just complaining and giving the game a 0 on metacritic. It's 90% useless.
I don't think there's much point in caring over nerdragers complaining about the servers not opening. It is pretty much unavoidable
However, things like the always online is a hindrance to the enjoyment of the game, not only to people who can't even play the game, but also to people with sub-par internet connections.
User scores are pretty much 100% meaningless as an average. You have to put them on a case by case basis. However Blizzard should pay attention to these concerns. I think they should have listened about the always-online issue. It's a strange place to be in as someone with a half-decent PC without a constant broadband connection, but there should have been some sort of comprimise. Maybe a seperate client for offline mode? It's just an idea, one that is meaningless now since the game is already released, but more should be done than just complaining and giving the game a 0 on metacritic. It's 90% useless.
These negative scores can't really be justified.
DIII was always going to be online-only, so you have no grounds for believing otherwise. I'd say it's just down to server issues on launch day. They've simply underestimated demand, nothing more.
Yeah, you have a right to be annoyed that it's online-only, but you didn't have to buy it. It's old news.
I also refuse to believe that any Blizzard game legitimately deserves an average of 3.3.
DIII was always going to be online-only, so you have no grounds for believing otherwise. I'd say it's just down to server issues on launch day. They've simply underestimated demand, nothing more.
Yeah, you have a right to be annoyed that it's online-only, but you didn't have to buy it. It's old news.
I also refuse to believe that any Blizzard game legitimately deserves an average of 3.3.
It's mostly people over-reacting to all of the changes, if I find a single review that dosn't talk about the previous games, I'll be pleasently surprised (Also you shouldn't review a game because the servers are down, or else many MMOs would get review bombed on their first day)
I have to say I find all of this whole thing immensely funny. It's like blizzard started making heaps of money and absolutely forgot how to program anything. I mean Christ, Activision-Blizzard is the largest videogame company in the history of man, and everything they are coming out with progressively sucks more and more. SC2 balance is a joke. It took them 8 years to make it, and the graphics looked like they were from 2007. They actively removed tons of battlenet features and functionality, for absolutely no reason(but hey it can sync to facebook now.) And now I look at Diablo 3, with the same old clickfest gameplay, like they are trying to make the most boring game possible. The graphics look like a game from 2005. And I honestly don't really care about graphics, but Jesus if you aren't going to change anything about your game in the new version, you should probably have really good graphics. Because otherwise it makes me wonder what the hell you were doing the whole time you were supposed to be developing software.
Half-Life 2
BioShock
Portal
Portal 2
Skyrim
Oblivion
Mass Effect
Mass Effect 2
Company of Heroes
Starcraft 2
Call Of Duty 4:MW
Team Fortress 2
Fallout 3
Fallout New Vegas
Dragon Age: Origins
Total War: Shogun 2
Left 4 Dead
Left 4 Dead 2
The Witcher 2 Assassins of Kings
Basically any game that comes even close to delivering on expectations without tripping all over itself.
MinecraftThe Madman said:
Half-Life 2
BioShock
Portal
Portal 2
Skyrim
Oblivion
Mass Effect
Mass Effect 2
Company of Heroes
Starcraft 2
Call Of Duty 4:MW
Team Fortress 2
Fallout 3
Fallout New Vegas
Dragon Age: Origins
Total War: Shogun 2
Left 4 Dead
Left 4 Dead 2
The Witcher 2 Assassins of Kings
Basically any game that comes even close to delivering on expectations without tripping all over itself.
The irony of all the complainers and haters is 90% of them will still inevitably go buy Diablo 3. If they truly TRULY hated or didn't care about the game they wouldn't bother even talking about it. Sad children and man children complaining that something isn't exactly as they want it to be and nothing more as usual.
I started Act 2 tonight and it has been god damn awesome. Yeah the disconnects and inability to login has been annoying but its hardly an issue that will last for more than a couple days. By weeks end we'll have heard the last of it.
I started Act 2 tonight and it has been god damn awesome. Yeah the disconnects and inability to login has been annoying but its hardly an issue that will last for more than a couple days. By weeks end we'll have heard the last of it.
first off, metacritic are just people who only think in 1 and 10. between doesn't exist.
and i played Diablo III, am i annoyed with the connection issue? ofcourse, but i knew that it would happen. when you see the negative reviews it are people who are just mad because of the connection or they are straight lying with statements as: "i've finished the game already".
they should add a lock on the game after a week after release, so people who actually played it for a while, can make a review. why do you think that there aren't any critic reviews? because there aren't any! the only people who played enough to make a solid opinion are the players who did one huge run starting at the minute it was available.
the main issue i have with metacritic is that you can give a score, but you won't have to justify it with arguments. so every idiot/hater/fanboy can rate it without having played the game at all.
and i played Diablo III, am i annoyed with the connection issue? ofcourse, but i knew that it would happen. when you see the negative reviews it are people who are just mad because of the connection or they are straight lying with statements as: "i've finished the game already".
they should add a lock on the game after a week after release, so people who actually played it for a while, can make a review. why do you think that there aren't any critic reviews? because there aren't any! the only people who played enough to make a solid opinion are the players who did one huge run starting at the minute it was available.
the main issue i have with metacritic is that you can give a score, but you won't have to justify it with arguments. so every idiot/hater/fanboy can rate it without having played the game at all.
Honestly the game itself is pretty good, but there are currently a fair numbe of bugs and server issues that a lot of people are angry because they wanted their game to somehow be perfect at launch. I agree the DRM sucks (I wasn't able to play single player for a while because the servers were down) but the game itself is pretty entertaining and brings back a lot of nostalgia for me.Smeggs said:
I remember sitting in an internet cafe with 4 buddies of mine freaking out and running like hell to get away from the butcher. A those were the times.
But people really beat it already:blackdwarf said:
http://www.geekologie.com/2012/05/congratulations-fan-beats-diablo-3-in-12.php
Shortest i heard was 4 hours for some korean streamers to beat normal.
http://www.justin.my/2012/05/diablo-3-dead-in-6-hours-of-launching-in-korea/