Skyrim or any Bethesda game is full of bugs (incl game breaking ones) but they have yet to be dinged for those. Bethesda games score among the highest on MetaCritic.

It shouldn't. As I see it, if someone were to reference a score two weeks from now, after everything is fine and stable, and that score reflects a review adjusted for the launch-day issues, that doesn't help anyone down the road. It's only useful as long as those issues are occurring, which as far as I can tell, they aren't.

I would say it would be unjust to knock the game for server issues. This isn't like a Bethesda (I don't have an issue with their games being busted at launch) release where you can't play because the game itself is actually busted. If you want to give a review for the Blizzard servers, then go ahead. But, reviews are for the game itself, and servers struggling to handle the number of players does not equal shoddy gameplay.

Also, when was the last time a huge online game released without some kind of server issues on day one. It really isn't a big deal if you can't play the game 10 hours after it launched. I wish people would quit whining and acting like if they can't play immediately, they've been screwed over.

@Cataphract1014 said:

@Karkarov: Server stability != a buggy game. I haven't encountered one bug or crash while playing. I saw someone compare D3 to Skyrim saying D3 is buggier. The two aren't even comparable. As a piece of software, Skyrim was a piece of shit. I loved it, but it was a buggy mess. Diablo 3's problems all come from server infrastructure. The game itself isn't buggy at all. If you want to call the error messages from the server connectivity bugs, then I guess it is buggy.

I didn't say anything about server stability. I mentioned in game confirmed problems. Like the one they wrote a Giantbomb article on that makes it impossible for you to play your character if it effects you.

ITT: People who don't know anything about serverhosting.

Should the launch problems be mentioned? Yes. Should they (greatly) affect the score? No.

I don't think the scores will be affected by it, but I do believe that reviewers are going to rightfully chastise Blizzard for the always online thing.

They should factor in, but unless they continue to be this bad or the always-online crap ends up continuing to mess with the user experience, it shouldn't affect it too much. But yeah, it was unplayable due to problems on the first day and even when up there's been annoying lag and loss of data/achievements. I lost a couple of hours of achievement data that I'll have to replay if I want to get, an hour of playing data, and spent more time looking at a server page than playing the game. If I was reviewing, how would that not factor into a review? It's been a shitty day of user experience from top to bottom.

And if anything, it further shows the weaknesses of having an always-online system, which people were suspicious about from the start. Blizzard made this decision, now they're reaping the rewards.

I think game reviews need a major overhaul when it comes to a game's longevity, replay ability, and yes all the little shit that comes along with it (DRM)

People keep saying it isn't Blizzard's fault, but it is. They're forcing everyone to deal with their servers, which means people have to wait to play a singleplayer game and deal with connection lag, which is just embarrassing. Also, that Templar glitch would have been avoided if the player didn't have to be synced up with the server in the first place.

At the very least they should hold off on reviewing it until the situation is under control and at least note it in the review.

I like reading peoples excuses for Blizzards crap.

It is kinda annoying that I can't access a single player game....But it's weird that their biggest flaw was that to many people wanted to buy the game and play it immediately the second the servers where up, midnight or not. I feel like an uncomfortable afternoon after release should not be damning.

That being said, I did feel like burning the place down the second I couldn't "connect" to my single player game. Rage that dissipated after being able to play without issues for a while after trying later.

@Dagbiker said:

I like reading peoples excuses for Blizzards crap.

The server was down for maybe 5 hours total in the first 24 hours of one of the biggest online game launches in history. I think they did a damn fine job, no excuses necessary.

It damn well shouldn't. However, if you go to Amazon.com's page for it, idiots on the internet are already working on that.

@Krakn3Dfx: Do reviews even matter for a game like this?

The game isnt busted, it works fine. The battlenet servers are just shit right now for some reason (presumably because of all the new connections) it's annoying as fuck but it will pass. It doesn't change the fact the game is awesome.

Who really gives a fuck about the reviews game has already sold balls crazy anyway..

No and it shouldn't. People expected this, or at least people with common sense. Judge the game itself (which is awesome).

I like how people think them having an offline mode was ever an option. They would be stupid to have such a global high profile game an easier chance to allow it to be pirated. I know it sucks this effects people that pay for it but its makes perfect business sense to go this route. Also Blizzard has always been about integrating in there battle.net social aspect

If you having to wait an extra day to play a freaking video game is "inexcusable" then you might need to grow up.

In saying that if we have these problems after a few days and I see lag in the game once im logged in (which i have but its been minimal) then I believe review scores and peoples opinions should reflect. Until then people need to take a deep breathe and go play megaman until the servers are back up.

As much as I think it's valid for people to criticize these issues, is there really much of a point in a review criticizing them?

By the time the reviews come out, most of the issues will be gone, or at least improved. For anybody who hasn't yet bought Diablo 3, but is interested enough to base a decision on a review, does docking points because of this really do anything to help them make a decision? Hearing that Diablo 3 had a horrible launch day doesn't tell me anything useful if it's a week later and I'm deciding whether or not I'm going to buy it. If the servers are fine at the time I'm making the decision, and probably won't have any more problems like this, isn't that what matters to me more?

I'm not that surprise about the down time. In a way I feel sad that I should be expecting this sort of thing to happen when I buy a game day 1, the every moment it came out and not be able to play it during my spare time. I might be thinking too much of the business side of the situation but to me, these "semi" online game with co - op feature should not have these problem. Imagine buying a FPS and not being able to play online/co-op day one, that's how I think of D3's online feature. And the main reason why they are having all these server issue if because of DRM and the things they put ingame to prevent people pirating the single player part of the game.

we are talking about one of the wealthiest if not THE wealthiest gaming developing company in the history of gaming.

@Dagbiker: This is the first Blizzard game I've played since Warcraft III, so I'm far from a Blizzard fanboy making excuses for them. Server issues are a common thing, not exclusive to video games. It sucks when it happens, but it isn't like the game was unplayable all day. I just think it isn't something worth getting angry about.