I agree with most of the article, while still loving the game.

I do disagree with his comments about the writing and voice acting, I love those. The Templar speaks every line with such conviction, it's great. My wizard's sass comes off as genuine and not forced. Good times.

I didn't find this article snobbish or condescending. He either states facts that are accurate or opinions about the always-on DRM that are largely along the same lines has pretty much every other articles on the subject.

Regarding the DRM thing i absolutely agree when he says "Oh, and if you’ve not had server issues, others have, and that doesn’t make server issues okay". There's essentially two types of opinions on this subject. Those who don't care about it provided it works fine, which is probably mostly the case by now and will continue to be so for the rest of this game's existence. And then there are those who will refuse to play it at all out of principles against DRMs. One thing remains though. The always-on DRM for Diablo III has been put in place, and has so far caused a lot of issues, because of the introduction of the real money auction house and PVP, features not currently in the game, and apparently delayed even more than initially planned in the auction house's case. Whatever camp you are in on that specific issue, right now there are no good ways for Blizzard to justify the issues that have plagued the game.

I would also add that if people try to diminish the importance of the always-on DRM by saying that every massively anticipated games like this have had server issues at launch than it is only fair to judge the game against other release that too suffered from server issues. You don't need to look far back in Blizzard's catalog to find example and from my experience, Diablo III's launch has been more problematic than Cataclysm and Starcraft 2's launches. Add to this that the features requiring the always-on DRM aren't even in the game yet and Blizzard really does look worst than before.

The rest of his criticisms don't seem too far fetched either and it certainly didn't feel like he was trying really hard to find negative things to say about the game. It is a very simple game and any issues will always be more apparent in simpler games and it is harder to give them a pass compared to other games with more complex mechanics and environments. I didn't see anything condescending in there.

Gotta admit, when I first started playing it I couldn't help but think "what's all the hoopla about?" However, the more I played it the more I had fun with it, it's definitely nothing incredibly special. Nowhere near the best game ever made, but for what it's worth, a fun game.

@SpaceJamLunchbox said:

Why are you reading reviews and articles if you don't care about the writer's opinion?

And why do you care?

This is like the Metacritic score arguments. Do you care more about enjoying the game, or having an overwhelming positive response to wave in the face of other people that the thing you enjoy is "good?" Is someone saying something negative going to impact your enjoyment of the game in anyway, and if does, are you going to ask yourself why?

And why do you care?

This is like the Metacritic score arguments. Do you care more about enjoying the game, or having an overwhelming positive response to wave in the face of other people that the thing you enjoy is "good?" Is someone saying something negative going to impact your enjoyment of the game in anyway, and if does, are you going to ask yourself why?

@Jrinswand: Targeted audience? Even if I was what you considered the "target audience" the game still has gigantic flaws with how its handled mainly due to the DRM and the game play has been dumbed down so much there was a time when I literally just held my finger down on the Act 1 boss not moving or doing anything and 30seconds later he's dead. That's shoddy design.

I can't read RPS these days, it's just a bunch of cynical PC gamers telling all the "console kids" to get off their lawn. That and how they furiously masturbate to some bullshit indie game nobody will give a fuck about in a week's time makes them pretentious arthouse douchebags. I couldn't stand the snooty nature of their site so I removed them from their RSS and feel better as a result.

I haven't read the article, and my comment is more on the commenters anyway. I like how as soon as a reviewer writes how he doesn't like a popular game everyone is so quick to defend him for his "integrity" and that they are "standing up" for they're opinions. This may be true but it is not always the case. It may be cynical of me, but most of the articles that bash a big game like that just look like they are trying to get traffic by having a controversial view and being "edgy."

@Paul_Is_Drunk said:

And why do you care?

This is like the Metacritic score arguments. Do you care more about enjoying the game, or having an overwhelming positive response to wave in the face of other people that the thing you enjoy is "good?" Is someone saying something negative going to impact your enjoyment of the game in anyway, and if does, are you going to ask yourself why?

I was just testing out RPS, trying to see if I like it. The jury's still out on that one but if their coverage of other games is anything like their coverage of Diablo 3, I may have to stay away from that site as a rule.

@Jimbo said:

@Jrinswand said:

@Paul_Is_Drunk said:

And why do you care?

This is like the Metacritic score arguments. Do you care more about enjoying the game, or having an overwhelming positive response to wave in the face of other people that the thing you enjoy is "good?" Is someone saying something negative going to impact your enjoyment of the game in anyway, and if does, are you going to ask yourself why?

I was just testing out RPS, trying to see if I like it. The jury's still out on that one but if their coverage of other games is anything like their coverage of Diablo 3, I may have to stay away from that site as a rule.

There's no shortage of sites out there which unerringly fawn over the latest big release, if that's your thing.

instead RPS fawns over indie games

@EmuLeader said:

I haven't read the article, and my comment is more on the commenters anyway. I like how as soon as a reviewer writes how he doesn't like a popular game everyone is so quick to defend him for his "integrity" and that they are "standing up" for they're opinions. This may be true but it is not always the case. It may be cynical of me, but most of the articles that bash a big game like that just look like they are trying to get traffic by having a controversial view and being "edgy."

Against the argument that the game is just the same as Diablo II, I don't really see how that is a bad thing. It's been 12 years since it came out, so it is not as if they are flooding the market by releasing the same game three years in a row like most of Activision's popular titles. It seems Blizzard answered their fans' call to bring back Diablo with better graphics and some tweaked gameplay choices, i.e. runes, only six usable skills at a time, etc. If they gave the fans what they wanted and made it super polished in the process, I don't really see the issue.

So you haven't read the article but decided that you were best suited to come into this thread and make crazy assumptions about the author and the commenters defending him. Cool.

I didn't read the article at all, and just read the first italicized paragraph, but it just sounds like the guy doesn't like Diablo. 
 
 
Hey guys, guess what? The map in Diablo II didn't carry over either. That's because the areas are fucking randomly generated. There were no checkpoints either; the only things that served as checkpoints were waypoints, but only indirectly. And the fucking difficulties are linear. There is no way to "raise the difficulty" because that's not how difficulties work in Diablo. When you beat Normal at around level 30, your character goes to Nightmare, where the enemies in Act I are around level 30 and the enemies in Act IV are around level 50. Then you go to Hell, then Inferno. Don't worry, because in the event that you even get that far without quitting before you even understand the systems, Nightmare is hard and Hell is even harder. In Hell one hit from a boss is doing 80% of my health pool, whereas in Normal, because I've been playing Diablo II for the last 10 years and I'm not an idiot, no boss brought me below 2/3 health. I'm not in Inferno yet, but I can only imagine.
 
I am so sick of reading people complaining about systems that are inherent to Diablo. People need to realize that not every game is for them. If games tried to appease the most fans at all times we'd end up with all games being the same diluted lowest common denominator bullshit.

@wmaustin55 said:

@AlexW00d

@Animasta said:

It's like, super manufactured british tweeness.

The fuck does that even mean?

Do you have to be such a hostile twat to everyone on here? Go enjoy your day, dude

Way to misread my post dyngus.

@Animasta said:

@AlexW00d said:

@Animasta said:

It's like, super manufactured british tweeness.

The fuck does that even mean?

I don't know! I can't adequately explain it. They take the first paragraph and are required to try to be funny in it, no matter what. it's just kinda annoying after a while

Oh, yeah I can see that. It's usually hit or miss on whether it's 'funny' or just cringey. I don't really see how that makes it British, but I understand.

I stopped reading where DRM was brought up.

The hivemind grows.

@Jimbo said:

@Jrinswand said:

@Paul_Is_Drunk said:

And why do you care?

This is like the Metacritic score arguments. Do you care more about enjoying the game, or having an overwhelming positive response to wave in the face of other people that the thing you enjoy is "good?" Is someone saying something negative going to impact your enjoyment of the game in anyway, and if does, are you going to ask yourself why?

I was just testing out RPS, trying to see if I like it. The jury's still out on that one but if their coverage of other games is anything like their coverage of Diablo 3, I may have to stay away from that site as a rule.

There's no shortage of sites out there which unerringly fawn over the latest big release, if that's your thing.

instead RPS fawns over indie games

@Jrinswand said:

@Paul_Is_Drunk said:

And why do you care?

This is like the Metacritic score arguments. Do you care more about enjoying the game, or having an overwhelming positive response to wave in the face of other people that the thing you enjoy is "good?" Is someone saying something negative going to impact your enjoyment of the game in anyway, and if does, are you going to ask yourself why?

I was just testing out RPS, trying to see if I like it. The jury's still out on that one but if their coverage of other games is anything like their coverage of Diablo 3, I may have to stay away from that site as a rule.

Then why come here to complain about it? If you are just testing the site, why do you feel the need to point out to users on this site that you don't like their reaction to Diablo 3?

I have absolutely no interest in RPS, and indeed GiantBomb is nearly the only site I use for video game news. However, if the staff were critical of a game I enjoyed, I wouldn't go somewhere like RPS to complain about it. If you have an issue with RPS, take it up with them. If this is just about making sure the game you enjoy is only getting positive talk, then reevaluate how and why you enjoy video games.

@SlasherMan: @AlexW00d: I saw the game a couple times and I know that it's a Diablo clone. I may have used the term "MMO" too loosely here, I guess. What I meant is the person who made that post was dooming Diablo 3 based solely on the first 15 minutes of the game, though.

I didn't read the article at all, and just read the first italicized paragraph, but it just sounds like the guy doesn't like Diablo. 
 
 
Hey guys, guess what? The map in Diablo II didn't carry over either. That's because the areas are fucking randomly generated. There were no checkpoints either; the only things that served as checkpoints were waypoints, but only indirectly. And the fucking difficulties are linear. There is no way to "raise the difficulty" because that's not how difficulties work in Diablo. When you beat Normal at around level 30, your character goes to Nightmare, where the enemies in Act I are around level 30 and the enemies in Act IV are around level 50. Then you go to Hell, then Inferno. Don't worry, because in the event that you even get that far without quitting before you even understand the systems, Nightmare is hard and Hell is even harder. In Hell one hit from a boss is doing 80% of my health pool, whereas in Normal, because I've been playing Diablo II for the last 10 years and I'm not an idiot, no boss brought me below 2/3 health. I'm not in Inferno yet, but I can only imagine.
 
I am so sick of reading people complaining about systems that are inherent to Diablo. People need to realize that not every game is for them. If games tried to appease the most fans at all times we'd end up with all games being the same diluted lowest common denominator bullshit.

@ajamafalous said:

I didn't read the article at all, and just read the first italicized paragraph, but it just sounds like the guy doesn't like Diablo.


Hey guys, guess what? The map in Diablo II didn't carry over either. That's because the areas are fucking randomly generated. There were no checkpoints either; the only things that served as checkpoints were waypoints, but only indirectly. And the fucking difficulties are linear. There is no way to "raise the difficulty" because that's not how difficulties work in Diablo. When you beat Normal at around level 30, your character goes to Nightmare, where the enemies in Act I are around level 30 and the enemies in Act IV are around level 50. Then you go to Hell, then Inferno. Don't worry, because in the event that you even get that far without quitting before you even understand the systems, Nightmare is hard and Hell is even harder. In Hell one hit from a boss is doing 80% of my health pool, whereas in Normal, because I've been playing Diablo II for the last 10 years and I'm not an idiot, no boss brought me below 2/3 health. I'm not in Inferno yet, but I can only imagine.

I am so sick of reading people complaining about systems that are inherent to Diablo. People need to realize that not every game is for them. If games tried to appease the most fans at all times we'd end up with all games being the same diluted lowest common denominator bullshit.

He literally says that the entire first paragraph lack of checkpoint / resetting thing is because his connection dropped and he had to restart the thing because the game broke. Not liking having to do the same thing over and over minutes after you just did it is 'just not liking Diablo'?

Edit:

It was because the connection dropped in the solo game I’m playing that all those events in the first paragraph took place. Eventually, about fifteen minutes later, it admitted the connection was gone, and restarting yet again put me back at the last checkpoint, one dungeon and an entire map ago. And nothing – absolutely nothing – interesting lies between me and where I’ve reached twice before.

These failings, the DRM-based brokenness of the game, breaks the spell.

Reading comprehension is at an all time low.

@ajamafalous said:

I didn't read the article at all, and just read the first italicized paragraph, but it just sounds like the guy doesn't like Diablo. 
 
 
Hey guys, guess what? The map in Diablo II didn't carry over either. That's because the areas are fucking randomly generated. There were no checkpoints either; the only things that served as checkpoints were waypoints, but only indirectly. And the fucking difficulties are linear. There is no way to "raise the difficulty" because that's not how difficulties work in Diablo. When you beat Normal at around level 30, your character goes to Nightmare, where the enemies in Act I are around level 30 and the enemies in Act IV are around level 50. Then you go to Hell, then Inferno. Don't worry, because in the event that you even get that far without quitting before you even understand the systems, Nightmare is hard and Hell is even harder. In Hell one hit from a boss is doing 80% of my health pool, whereas in Normal, because I've been playing Diablo II for the last 10 years and I'm not an idiot, no boss brought me below 2/3 health. I'm not in Inferno yet, but I can only imagine.
 
I am so sick of reading people complaining about systems that are inherent to Diablo. People need to realize that not every game is for them. If games tried to appease the most fans at all times we'd end up with all games being the same diluted lowest common denominator bullshit.

You can't get much more LCD than Diablo.
 
Also, 'That's just how it is!' isn't a very compelling rebuttal to somebody saying that they find a particular design choice (in this case, apparently having to play through the game with no challenge at all before being able to play on a more engaging difficulty) kinda shitty.  What is the benefit to forcing the player to play through at a difficulty they don't find engaging before letting them play at one they do?

@ajamafalous said:

I didn't read the article at all, and just read the first italicized paragraph, but it just sounds like the guy doesn't like Diablo.


Hey guys, guess what? The map in Diablo II didn't carry over either. That's because the areas are fucking randomly generated. There were no checkpoints either; the only things that served as checkpoints were waypoints, but only indirectly. And the fucking difficulties are linear. There is no way to "raise the difficulty" because that's not how difficulties work in Diablo. When you beat Normal at around level 30, your character goes to Nightmare, where the enemies in Act I are around level 30 and the enemies in Act IV are around level 50. Then you go to Hell, then Inferno. Don't worry, because in the event that you even get that far without quitting before you even understand the systems, Nightmare is hard and Hell is even harder. In Hell one hit from a boss is doing 80% of my health pool, whereas in Normal, because I've been playing Diablo II for the last 10 years and I'm not an idiot, no boss brought me below 2/3 health. I'm not in Inferno yet, but I can only imagine.

I am so sick of reading people complaining about systems that are inherent to Diablo. People need to realize that not every game is for them. If games tried to appease the most fans at all times we'd end up with all games being the same diluted lowest common denominator bullshit.

He literally says that the entire first paragraph lack of checkpoint / resetting thing is because his connection dropped and he had to restart the thing because the game broke. Not liking having to do the same thing over and over minutes after you just did it is 'just not liking Diablo'?

Edit:

It was because the connection dropped in the solo game I’m playing that all those events in the first paragraph took place. Eventually, about fifteen minutes later, it admitted the connection was gone, and restarting yet again put me back at the last checkpoint, one dungeon and an entire map ago. And nothing – absolutely nothing – interesting lies between me and where I’ve reached twice before.

These failings, the DRM-based brokenness of the game, breaks the spell.

@ajamafalous said:

The game's core formula is based around playing the same thing over and over again, farming for drops/experience, not to mention that being disconnected and forced to replay the same thing again would've also happened in Diablo II as well.

Playing through the same thing over and over, yes. But not back to back. You go through on one difficulty and hours/days later you do it again on a harder difficulty. Playing the same dungeon over and over on the same difficulty, with your gear and level resetting each time, when you are trying to move on to the next part isn't part of the core formula.

It is one thing to make the decision to grind the same room over and over because you want a drop. It is an entirely different thing when you want to get past the room and the game keeps resetting you.

I haven't played Diablo II in years, but I don't remember being disconnected when I was playing single player.

Edit: On the difficulty topic, I hate when a game locks a difficulty. I haven't played Diablo III, but from my understanding you literally cannot choose the hard equivalent until you beat the normal. Why not let people start on hard from the beginning, even if it is designed to be played at a higher level. If I want to die over and over to the first monster in the game on Inferno while playing a level one character why can't I?

@Binman88 said:

@EmuLeader said:

I haven't read the article, and my comment is more on the commenters anyway. I like how as soon as a reviewer writes how he doesn't like a popular game everyone is so quick to defend him for his "integrity" and that they are "standing up" for they're opinions. This may be true but it is not always the case. It may be cynical of me, but most of the articles that bash a big game like that just look like they are trying to get traffic by having a controversial view and being "edgy."

Against the argument that the game is just the same as Diablo II, I don't really see how that is a bad thing. It's been 12 years since it came out, so it is not as if they are flooding the market by releasing the same game three years in a row like most of Activision's popular titles. It seems Blizzard answered their fans' call to bring back Diablo with better graphics and some tweaked gameplay choices, i.e. runes, only six usable skills at a time, etc. If they gave the fans what they wanted and made it super polished in the process, I don't really see the issue.

So you haven't read the article but decided that you were best suited to come into this thread and make crazy assumptions about the author and the commenters defending him. Cool.

I never once made an assumption about article, its author, or the commenters. I just stated a general observation that might be relevant due to similar situations. When I addressed the argument, I was addressing the general argument, not the intention of the RPS article. The thing about my post is that it was actually relevant to the general situation occurring. Yours was a personal attack that yielded absolutely nothing to the thread. Cool story, bro.

The intentions of some sites does not necessarily mean RPS was doing the same thing. It is a simple option that is present. Just because you don't agree or know the true intentions of the author doesn't mean you can't partake in civil discussion, instead of attacking the person you disagree with.

@ajamafalous said:

@Jimbo said:

@ajamafalous said:

I didn't read the article at all, and just read the first italicized paragraph, but it just sounds like the guy doesn't like Diablo.


Hey guys, guess what? The map in Diablo II didn't carry over either. That's because the areas are fucking randomly generated. There were no checkpoints either; the only things that served as checkpoints were waypoints, but only indirectly. And the fucking difficulties are linear. There is no way to "raise the difficulty" because that's not how difficulties work in Diablo. When you beat Normal at around level 30, your character goes to Nightmare, where the enemies in Act I are around level 30 and the enemies in Act IV are around level 50. Then you go to Hell, then Inferno. Don't worry, because in the event that you even get that far without quitting before you even understand the systems, Nightmare is hard and Hell is even harder. In Hell one hit from a boss is doing 80% of my health pool, whereas in Normal, because I've been playing Diablo II for the last 10 years and I'm not an idiot, no boss brought me below 2/3 health. I'm not in Inferno yet, but I can only imagine.

I am so sick of reading people complaining about systems that are inherent to Diablo. People need to realize that not every game is for them. If games tried to appease the most fans at all times we'd end up with all games being the same diluted lowest common denominator bullshit.

You can't get much more LCD than Diablo.

Also, 'That's just how it is!' isn't a very compelling rebuttal to somebody saying that they find a particular design choice (in this case, apparently having to play through the game with no challenge at all before being able to play on a more engaging difficulty) kinda shitty. What is the benefit to forcing the player to play through at a difficulty they don't find engaging before letting them play at one they do?

I happen to agree as far as the difficulty scaling goes. It's like they shifted the difficulty down half a step from Diablo II. Nightmare is about as hard as Diablo II's Normal was. Was this simply an attempt to have a more forgiving game the first time around because they knew they'd have so many new players? Probably, just like the shitty system of only being able to pick certain skill types for certain slots (which luckily can be eliminated with elective mode). I'm not saying the game is perfect and I definitely have my share of issues with it, but things inherent to the Diablo experience are not among my complaints.

@Lagaroth said:

@ajamafalous said:

I didn't read the article at all, and just read the first italicized paragraph, but it just sounds like the guy doesn't like Diablo.


Hey guys, guess what? The map in Diablo II didn't carry over either. That's because the areas are fucking randomly generated. There were no checkpoints either; the only things that served as checkpoints were waypoints, but only indirectly. And the fucking difficulties are linear. There is no way to "raise the difficulty" because that's not how difficulties work in Diablo. When you beat Normal at around level 30, your character goes to Nightmare, where the enemies in Act I are around level 30 and the enemies in Act IV are around level 50. Then you go to Hell, then Inferno. Don't worry, because in the event that you even get that far without quitting before you even understand the systems, Nightmare is hard and Hell is even harder. In Hell one hit from a boss is doing 80% of my health pool, whereas in Normal, because I've been playing Diablo II for the last 10 years and I'm not an idiot, no boss brought me below 2/3 health. I'm not in Inferno yet, but I can only imagine.

I am so sick of reading people complaining about systems that are inherent to Diablo. People need to realize that not every game is for them. If games tried to appease the most fans at all times we'd end up with all games being the same diluted lowest common denominator bullshit.

He literally says that the entire first paragraph lack of checkpoint / resetting thing is because his connection dropped and he had to restart the thing because the game broke. Not liking having to do the same thing over and over minutes after you just did it is 'just not liking Diablo'?

Edit:

It was because the connection dropped in the solo game I’m playing that all those events in the first paragraph took place. Eventually, about fifteen minutes later, it admitted the connection was gone, and restarting yet again put me back at the last checkpoint, one dungeon and an entire map ago. And nothing – absolutely nothing – interesting lies between me and where I’ve reached twice before.

These failings, the DRM-based brokenness of the game, breaks the spell.

"not to mention that being disconnected and forced to replay the same thing again would've also happened in Diablo II as well."

Uhhh...No.

Someone doesn't like diablo.

Millions of people do like diablo.

More at 11.

@EmuLeader said:

@Binman88 said:

@EmuLeader said:

I haven't read the article, and my comment is more on the commenters anyway. I like how as soon as a reviewer writes how he doesn't like a popular game everyone is so quick to defend him for his "integrity" and that they are "standing up" for they're opinions. This may be true but it is not always the case. It may be cynical of me, but most of the articles that bash a big game like that just look like they are trying to get traffic by having a controversial view and being "edgy."

Against the argument that the game is just the same as Diablo II, I don't really see how that is a bad thing. It's been 12 years since it came out, so it is not as if they are flooding the market by releasing the same game three years in a row like most of Activision's popular titles. It seems Blizzard answered their fans' call to bring back Diablo with better graphics and some tweaked gameplay choices, i.e. runes, only six usable skills at a time, etc. If they gave the fans what they wanted and made it super polished in the process, I don't really see the issue.

So you haven't read the article but decided that you were best suited to come into this thread and make crazy assumptions about the author and the commenters defending him. Cool.

I never once made an assumption about article, its author, or the commenters. I just stated a general observation that might be relevant due to similar situations. When I addressed the argument, I was addressing the general argument, not the intention of the RPS article. The thing about my post is that it was actually relevant to the general situation occurring. Yours was a personal attack that yielded absolutely nothing to the thread. Cool story, bro.

The intentions of some sites does not necessarily mean RPS was doing the same thing. It is a simple option that is present. Just because you don't agree or know the true intentions of the author doesn't mean you can't partake in civil discussion, instead of attacking the person you disagree with.

Step outside and take some deep breaths of fresh air, because if you construed what I said as a personal attack, I think you've got some problems!

i havent played diablo 3 but i knowe BLIzzard would not let me down. i dont even haev any irl friends, blizzard is my only friend. that is how i know this guy is full of shit!!

Step outside and take some deep breaths of fresh air, because if you construed what I said as a personal attack, I think you've got some problems!

@Jrinswand said:

@Binman88 said:

Step outside and take some deep breaths of fresh air, because if you construed what I said as a personal attack, I think you've got some problems!

Stop trolling.

No trolling here, duder, but nice try. Some fresh air might do you a world of good too!

"As I explore Act II, I’m still bewildered as to how they could have taken so long to make a game that adds so little."

That line pretty much summed up my thoughts on Diablo 3. I can't understand what they were doing all those years. Is this what happens when a developer isn't constantly prodded by the publisher to meet deadlines and get the game out on the shelves?

@Humanity said:

"As I explore Act II, I’m still bewildered as to how they could have taken so long to make a game that adds so little."

That line pretty much summed up my thoughts on Diablo 3. I can't understand what they were doing all those years. Is this what happens when a developer isn't constantly prodded by the publisher to meet deadlines and get the game out on the shelves?

Stop saying things to gain views >:(

Derp.

@AlexW00d said:

@Humanity said:

"As I explore Act II, I’m still bewildered as to how they could have taken so long to make a game that adds so little."

That line pretty much summed up my thoughts on Diablo 3. I can't understand what they were doing all those years. Is this what happens when a developer isn't constantly prodded by the publisher to meet deadlines and get the game out on the shelves?

Stop saying things to gain views >:(

Derp.

Thats honestly how I feel about it. I caved in because of all my friends playing it and I did have fun in the past with Diablo 2. That entire article is what I've been experiencing. I go around with my friends, dungeon after dungeon and I keep thinking how with each stage everything about the game is so incredibly dated. Don't get me wrong, they did a fine job on polishing most aspects to a near perfect finish. What I'm concerned about is how it's just basically Diablo 2, that in 2012 doesn't even have particularly impressive graphics. The art direction is nice and like Brad mentioned so is the color palette but when I'm meandering through the open fields the ground is just a flat surface peppered with a tree or maybe a bush here and there and theres a strange haze over everything. When you turn on the function to zoom in the camera when you're in inventory mode you can see how rudimentary those character textures are. Yet despite this even when playing by myself I get weird stutters when attacking here and there which have to be caused by latency I presume because I've ran much more system demanding games like Witcher 2 without a hitch - unless their engine just handles something poorly? They simplified the skills and attributes to a point where it's almost a lie to even label the game an RPG - but thats not even that important because Diablo was the reason the term "hack n' slash" came about anyway. The biggest problem I keep having is as I mentioned before, trying to figure out what took them so long? It's a solid Diablo game that does everything those previous titles have done before that adds absolutely nothing new to the table. Despite all this please realize this isn't an attack on anyone and if you enjoy the game then I'm honestly happy for you - thats just my personal view on it.

@Humanity: I was just being a dufus; I totally agree with you.

To be honest, I found Diablo 3 to be a bit mediocre. That's an opinion. I respect that loads of people love the game, it's just not for me. Rock Paper Shotgun can have an opinion contrary to the mainstream one. The site is a blog, not an online magazine, so it is just opinions.

They aren't trolling for traffic, they don't need to, they're bigger than Giant Bomb last time I checked, and the argument that they're trolling for traffic is just as bankrupt as the idea that Giant Bomb are trolling for traffic when they didn't give Skyward Sword the full 5 stars.

This doesn't have anything to do with Diablo 3 but today John Walker, the twat who wrote the article in the OP, also put out thisarticle in which he acted he acted like a dickbag and then later put in an prefatory apology as a sort of disclaimer about his dickishness. I have found that skipping his articles has made RPS immensely more enjoyable in the past few weeks.

@Bobby_The_Great said:

Regardless of their hate, pass the initial few days of a botched launch, I've been having a blast with Diablo 3.

Amen, though I only had issue ONCE where I wanted to play and it was down for patches. Any other time I got right in, no queues or login errors.

I didn't pick up a condescending tone from that. I don't find much of what is written there inacurate either.