Any thoughts on whose reactions and insights would be most informative in a Diablo 3 review? Any wagers who will end up doing it?

(Can't possibly be Vinny, given the offspring, right?)

Patrick. Don't know why; just a feeling.

Could be. He doesn't strike me as the action RPG type, though. Horror and platformers.

I think Ryan is overdue for a review.

Brad.

Dunno.

Who generally likes those games the most? I'd say Vinny or Jeff?

Brad and Jeff and Dave are known to have functional computers at home, so they're logistically in the mix, I guess. Also Drew, for that matter, with all the flight sim stuff.

@planetary said:

Brad and Jeff and Dave are known to have functional computers at home, so they're logistically in the mix, I guess. Also Drew, for that matter, with all the flight sim stuff.

Not to mention that in the Diablo3 beta QL Drew was very informative about Diablo 2 and LoD.

I think Brad will really like it, so I'm not sure his take will be the most informative. Jeff lately seems tired of the longer games, so I'm not sure he'll be informative either.

Patrick would be an interesting perspective. Ryan, too. Ryan seems like the swing vote on the Supreme Court, sometimes.

I have a feel it'a gonna be Ryan. He did Civ 5 and I think he is gonna do this one too.

I bet 20 Brad bucks on Brad!

@planetary said:

Ryan seems like the swing vote on the Supreme Court, sometimes.

Mostly because he just seems to like games that he has fun with. Which is probably the right way to go, it just makes it harder to generalise as to what "sorts" of games he prefers.

So I kinda hope Ryan does, though I find that doubtful

Not going to be Vinny. Since he now has a baby he doesn't have the time to dedicate to a game like diablo. Probably Brad or Patrick

@Sackmanjones said:

I bet 20 Brad bucks on Brad!

Ooo! Cash is on the table!

@planetary said:

@Sackmanjones said:

I bet 20 Brad bucks on Brad!

Ooo! Cash is on the table!

Yea, but Brad Bucks are only redeemable at Giant Bomb Land. (The mascot is Mickey Mouse with two bombs for ears.)

After Vinny, I presume Alex would be the least likely for some reason. Does he even own a personal computer? And even if he does, would he care about the mad loots? No, no he would not.

Vinny's baby will review the game... kid has to learn somehow.

I have a feeling it's gonna be Brad, he seems to be the Blizzard guy.

I'm going with Ryan!!!!

Seems pretty obvious it will be Brad and if not him Jeff.

@Marz said:

I have a feeling it's gonna be Brad, he seems to be the Blizzard guy.

True. And he reviewed Torchlight.

Probably Brad.

Either Brad or Jeff as they seem to be the main reviewers. But I wouldn't be suprised if one of the more PC focused guys do it (i.e. Dave/Drew)

OTOH, Ryan reviewed Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 2 for the PS2 back at Gamespot. Link. :-)

Bradley.

Brad has said that he never even played Diablo II back in the day, so he definitely shouldn't review this.

I bet there won't be a review at all!

@Bulby33 said:

I bet there won't be a review at all!

Madness.

@Catarrhal said:

Brad has said that he never even played Diablo II back in the day, so he definitely shouldn't review this.

Source? If true, then a Brad review would be... troubling.

I'll say Brad or Jeff!

Brad, Jeff, or Drew.

Girl.

@planetary said:

Source? If true, then a Brad review would be... troubling.

A year or two ago on the Bombcast, he mentioned that he was considering to buy the Diablo II Battle Chest, because it was cheap as hell and he had never played the games. I remember thinking to myself, "That's a terrible idea." But I was surprised to hear that he hadn't already played that shit.

@Catarrhal said:

Brad has said that he never even played Diablo II back in the day, so he definitely shouldn't review this.

Why? If anything, that would make him more eligible, since in his case, the game would be forced to stand on its own.

@Video_Game_King said:

@Catarrhal said:

Brad has said that he never even played Diablo II back in the day, so he definitely shouldn't review this.

Why? If anything, that would make him more eligible, since in his case, the game would be forced to stand on its own.

A good review puts the a game in its full context, which includes the developer's oeuvre, the game's generational peers, its genre, and (if applicable) its franchise.

@planetary:

No; a good review evaluates the game on its own. Not everybody playing the game will have played Diablo III or even other Blizzard games, so these shouldn't be treated as constants.

@Video_Game_King said:

@planetary:

No; a good review evaluates the game on its own. Not everybody playing the game will have played Diablo III or even other Blizzard games, so these shouldn't be treated as constants.

If the game fails to be as successful as its predecessor and its not remarked in the review than I believe that is the biggest oversight a reviewer can make. Games are not in a vacuum and especially games franchise such as Diablo or even in the same genre thats been struggling to find a face.

My guess is Brad, but if it's not Brad my next guess would probably be Jeff.

Brad or Jeff.

@Dany:

A.) Long running? It's three goddamn games. That'd be like calling Kid Icarus a long running series.

B.) How are we defining success here? I doubt you mean financial success (I'd love to see an argument there), but if you mean critical success (which I imagine you do), just because a game isn't as good as another game doesn't mean it's bad in any way. It can still be good. In fact, again, Diablo III is completely independent of II, so it's pretty strange to speak of the game in another fashion. But before I end this, I suspect you define success in terms of originality. Am I correct in that assumption?

Wouldn't surprise me if no one does. It's a huge game which can't possibly be reviewed properly in a timely manner. Sure you can do a review after playing through normal once but that's not what the game is about. Also, if it's like Starcraft 2 then they won't get an early copy thus delaying the review more making it even more useless.

I'm sure there'll be a quick look and probably other features surrounding the game but I don't think a review of it is something that can be seen as 100%.

There are pros and cons to someone who played Diablo II to review it. Obviously it depends entirely on if you played Diablo II or not, but there are a LOT of people who haven't I would bet.

@Video_Game_King: Success as in 'better than the previous' and Diabio is a franchise, not having a reviewer compare the two would be kinda crazy, IMO.

Vinny isn't a reviewer.

@Dany said:

Diabio is a franchise

But Diablo III is not. As I've been trying to say, the game can be reviewed in such a way that referencing or defining it in terms of previous Diablo games is entirely irrelevant.

Why not Dave? he seems like he would know Diablo well.....

I'm going with Dave, knowing that he tends to review PC titles and I would expect this would be his cup of tea.

Key is going to be someone w/a home computer..I do remember that being an issue once with Metro 2033. Ironically (because of that long-ago issue) but welcomed by me, I wonder if it will be Dave? I do bet you Dave probably has a box that can get up and dance...

And I kind of like Dave's PC opinion. Hell, even review judgement.

It'll probably be Dave or Alex.

If anyone actually does review it, my guess would be Brad. It would be nice though if it was either Dave or Drew that reviewed it.

Have you guys SEEN how excited Brad gets about colour-coded loot, even in games that are complete shit? (All Zombies Must Die)

Brad is easily the guy who will be most excited for D3. Though there's still a decent chance that Alex will review it, because they seem to hand him half of the reviews so they can justify continuing to employ somebody on the other side of the country.