The only review I care about (and everyone else should care about) is your own review. People have different tastes, and one person's liking - or disliking - of a game probably won't reflect your own. There are plenty of reviewers who rave about football games, while I see the series as repetitive garbage. "Oh, you put 2012 on the box? Must be different and revolutionary compared to last year's."
But yeah, Diablo III is gonna kick ass regardless of what anyone else says about it.
Reviewers will say what reviewers always say. Some will give it 10/10 best game ever and some will give it 3/10 Lol not Diablo 2. Those type of reviews will show up probably this week and the following two or so.
The real reviews will show up in about 30-45 days when the people writing these reviews dip their feet into inferno. I personally don't care what any site says good or bad. And I doubt Blizzard will care either as they will probably make record shattering profits in less than 72 hours from this post.
Reviewers will say what reviewers always say. Some will give it 10/10 best game ever and some will give it 3/10 Lol not Diablo 2. Those type of reviews will show up probably this week and the following two or so.
The real reviews will show up in about 30-45 days when the people writing these reviews dip their feet into inferno. I personally don't care what any site says good or bad. And I doubt Blizzard will care either as they will probably make record shattering profits in less than 72 hours from this post.
the reviews on inferno will indeed be interesting
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you don't have a TV, then what is all your furniture pointed at?"
The real reviews will show up in about 30-45 days when the people writing these reviews dip their feet into inferno. I personally don't care what any site says good or bad. And I doubt Blizzard will care either as they will probably make record shattering profits in less than 72 hours from this post.
There is very very little chance that any of the major websites will get to inferno before posting their review, and if they do they will probably start it up, die on the first pack and go.... yeah, it is hard.. 99% of the time they post MMO reviews before even hitting max level, let alone trying the end game features such as raiding. These guys are going to be under big time pressure from their editor to get the review out the door, and considering I doubt blizzard setup a private server for reviewers to start playing early they are probably going to be atleast a week late just to print a "so i just finished nightmare" review.
My assumption is that there will be lots of reviewers that give it a terrible mark just for cutting pvp out.
They're referring to the lack of pvp initially. And they're kind of right...
But when i read a journalist claiming d3 is not rdy i suddenly imagine this guy
...
typing "blizzard is releasing an incomplete product" and suddenly the irony is there.
how about you imagine this guy saying it?
...
because they would both be right
I don't know why someone's appearance matters when their making a unsound assessment.
This isn't an incomplete product. When you get to act four, you won't get a sign that displays coming soon, or when you battle Diablo he wont be displayed as one big block with the text 'unfinished texture' written on it. The game isn't incomplete, saying that is just stupid, and uninformed. However, the game did suffer cut content. The talisman was also cut, and the mystic, both of which will be added later on, but does that make the game incomplete? No, so why does it count for PvP then?
The talisman was also cut, and the mystic, both of which will be added later on
- Source?
You haven't been following this game very long, have you?
The talisman, May 2011
It was a cool idea at its core, but right now it's just really too basic and doesn't provide anything you can't get from the armor and weapons you're equipping. It requires a lot of the player to invest time and energy into finding and storing yet another type of item just to add player stats. When they do all that, it's just to do something pretty boring that they can already do with awesome things like armor and weapons. Originally the Talisman had a much deeper design, but it proved very ambitious and it got whittled down over the years to a very basic +stat per single square. We like simplicity in our designs, but charms became superfluous in their purpose. We really like the core idea, but we don't want to stop everything and spend a large amount of time trying to fix the Talisman, although we do have some great ideas already. So, it'll very likely come back in some form or another after the game ships. And be awesome.
The mystic, January 2012
The design team is currently looking at systems and cleaning them up, removing any superfluous system objectives and those that are beyond fixing. Thus, we're removing the Mystic artisan. As we look at the big picture, the Mystic simply wasn’t adding anything to our customization system. Enhancement was really just the socket and gem system with a different name, and it would prolong the release of the game even further to go back to the drawing board and differentiate it, so we’ll revisit the Mystic and enhancements at a later time. Removing her from the game took some time, but it’s nowhere near the efforts that would be required to flesh out a better customization system. We hope she’ll be able to join your caravan in the future, but for now we’re going to focus on the extensive customization options the game already offers.
- No matter how poor the game is, no reviewer will give Diablo 3 below a 80 unless they are looking for some desperate attention. Giving it an 80-100 won't be an untruthful review though. I think even the biggest D3 haters will give it at least an 80, due to a number of factors. It won't be a bias thing.
- Every single reviewer will grade the game based on the solo experience (mostly the presentation of the single player playthrough.) Even if they say that they have played co-op and that they included it in their score, they are lying. This mostly means that reviewers don't even try to assume a game's replayability, let alone have the wherewithal to even guess a game's replayability.
- Game reviews are "released" based on agreements between them and the company (Blizzard.) Example: Metal Gear Solid 4. Konami agreed to let reviewers come play the game in its entirety much earlier than release and allowed them to release their reviews before release as well. The reviewers had to agree to a long list of "Do No Talk About These Things" to be given that right to post the review early. One thing they couldnt comment on was "The Length of In-Game Cinematics." Some reviewers went off and commented on the length of the cinematics anyways, while some others alluded to their opinion on it. Diablo 3 reviews will probably be released on the 14th as far as I know.
- A good handful of reviewers are "noobs" or have unwarranted opinions on a frequent basis. Some of them are just bad at games. Some are just, quite frankly, idiots. Some go around looking for attention. If you don't agree with me, you are naive. But still, some are not all of the above and are just limited in such a way where they simply don't have enough time to play a game and give it a confident, honest and heart-felt review. With that beind said, nobody on this forum will give two shits about what they say in their reviews. Blizzard can basically look at this forum's user count and multiply that by $60 and count us up-front as profits.
- I personally do not think Diablo 3 will be "a game for reviewers," but they will probably give it favorable reviews anyways. With Diablo 3 being the 3rd in the series, the fans will really have to decide for themselves, simply because reviewers WiLL EASILY give this game a 100 if the single player is well-done and well presentated (example. Starcraft 2's single player campaign was well-presented and got a respectable metacritic rating.) It won't matter if the game is shit or not, only if the SP is presented well.
EDIT - Times have changed btw. Back when Diablo 2 was released, retards from websites like Gamespot.com gave Diablo 2 a score of no higher than 86 percent and rated other shit games during that time in the 90s. Things are a lot different now, but you should avoid a few sites like the plague, because they are just completely incompetant. Giving a game like Diablo 2 a comparatively low score of 86, when people still play the game a decade later, was a major facepalm at the time! A site like IGN is tough to judge though, because 15 years ago they were the best bar none, but now they are just waaaay too big so it's hard to identify them as :"great" or "awful." They do do some good work, but at the same time, you have situations outlined by this comic where Gabe and Tycho ripped Gamespy a new one
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Some people tell me I'm going to hell. I just let them know that I've already packed my bags!
I didn't read them very carefully the first time around. First they said those systems were boring, grindy and superfluous, but then they said it could be worked out into something good and added on later patch. Talk about complete 360° of intentions.
Yup, for some reason they cut them, some figure it's to have content to add with expansions. I don't like the idea that they removed them, I was really looking forward to both of them. Somehow people are more focused on the PvP aspect though, while I think the talisman and mystic would have had a far greater impact on the game.
Most of them are going to give the game postitive reviews, due to the stupidly high production values, great polish, ridiculous amount of content and customization, etc.
And some of them will put as cons some of the things the community complained a lot about: autostats/autoskills, online only, the RMAH, the difference graphics and too many changed mechanics, etc.
People , please , if you want to decide if you like the game or not there are 3 fine ways to do it :
1. Get the demo / friend's house - try it and see for yourself . (best way)
2. Go to twitch tv , watch streams , see ... like / dislike , get your own opinion of the game .
3. Youtube - enuff said .
Why bother read reviews when u can actually chat with ppl on the stream chats ? Ask your questions and say your opinion ...
EZ.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So here we go, something to even it out:
But yeah, Diablo III is gonna kick ass regardless of what anyone else says about it.
thank you for the even out.
The real reviews will show up in about 30-45 days when the people writing these reviews dip their feet into inferno. I personally don't care what any site says good or bad. And I doubt Blizzard will care either as they will probably make record shattering profits in less than 72 hours from this post.
the reviews on inferno will indeed be interesting
There is very very little chance that any of the major websites will get to inferno before posting their review, and if they do they will probably start it up, die on the first pack and go.... yeah, it is hard.. 99% of the time they post MMO reviews before even hitting max level, let alone trying the end game features such as raiding. These guys are going to be under big time pressure from their editor to get the review out the door, and considering I doubt blizzard setup a private server for reviewers to start playing early they are probably going to be atleast a week late just to print a "so i just finished nightmare" review.
My assumption is that there will be lots of reviewers that give it a terrible mark just for cutting pvp out.
I'll call it now: 9.5s across the board simple because of the lack of PVP.
I prefer play-through vids for that (i'm looking at you Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City).
man, that was a really big disappointment.
This isn't an incomplete product. When you get to act four, you won't get a sign that displays coming soon, or when you battle Diablo he wont be displayed as one big block with the text 'unfinished texture' written on it. The game isn't incomplete, saying that is just stupid, and uninformed. However, the game did suffer cut content. The talisman was also cut, and the mystic, both of which will be added later on, but does that make the game incomplete? No, so why does it count for PvP then?
The talisman, May 2011
The mystic, January 2012
- No matter how poor the game is, no reviewer will give Diablo 3 below a 80 unless they are looking for some desperate attention. Giving it an 80-100 won't be an untruthful review though. I think even the biggest D3 haters will give it at least an 80, due to a number of factors. It won't be a bias thing.
- Every single reviewer will grade the game based on the solo experience (mostly the presentation of the single player playthrough.) Even if they say that they have played co-op and that they included it in their score, they are lying. This mostly means that reviewers don't even try to assume a game's replayability, let alone have the wherewithal to even guess a game's replayability.
- Game reviews are "released" based on agreements between them and the company (Blizzard.) Example: Metal Gear Solid 4. Konami agreed to let reviewers come play the game in its entirety much earlier than release and allowed them to release their reviews before release as well. The reviewers had to agree to a long list of "Do No Talk About These Things" to be given that right to post the review early. One thing they couldnt comment on was "The Length of In-Game Cinematics." Some reviewers went off and commented on the length of the cinematics anyways, while some others alluded to their opinion on it. Diablo 3 reviews will probably be released on the 14th as far as I know.
- A good handful of reviewers are "noobs" or have unwarranted opinions on a frequent basis. Some of them are just bad at games. Some are just, quite frankly, idiots. Some go around looking for attention. If you don't agree with me, you are naive. But still, some are not all of the above and are just limited in such a way where they simply don't have enough time to play a game and give it a confident, honest and heart-felt review. With that beind said, nobody on this forum will give two shits about what they say in their reviews. Blizzard can basically look at this forum's user count and multiply that by $60 and count us up-front as profits.
- I personally do not think Diablo 3 will be "a game for reviewers," but they will probably give it favorable reviews anyways. With Diablo 3 being the 3rd in the series, the fans will really have to decide for themselves, simply because reviewers WiLL EASILY give this game a 100 if the single player is well-done and well presentated (example. Starcraft 2's single player campaign was well-presented and got a respectable metacritic rating.) It won't matter if the game is shit or not, only if the SP is presented well.
EDIT - Times have changed btw. Back when Diablo 2 was released, retards from websites like Gamespot.com gave Diablo 2 a score of no higher than 86 percent and rated other shit games during that time in the 90s. Things are a lot different now, but you should avoid a few sites like the plague, because they are just completely incompetant. Giving a game like Diablo 2 a comparatively low score of 86, when people still play the game a decade later, was a major facepalm at the time! A site like IGN is tough to judge though, because 15 years ago they were the best bar none, but now they are just waaaay too big so it's hard to identify them as :"great" or "awful." They do do some good work, but at the same time, you have situations outlined by this comic where Gabe and Tycho ripped Gamespy a new one
And some of them will put as cons some of the things the community complained a lot about: autostats/autoskills, online only, the RMAH, the difference graphics and too many changed mechanics, etc.
Metacritic overall score: I'd say 9,3
1. Get the demo / friend's house - try it and see for yourself . (best way)
2. Go to twitch tv , watch streams , see ... like / dislike , get your own opinion of the game .
3. Youtube - enuff said .
Why bother read reviews when u can actually chat with ppl on the stream chats ? Ask your questions and say your opinion ...
EZ.