This is Blizzard, they will buy a 95 metacritic rating with ad buys and any gaming news site who defies them will be blacklisted from their PR events.
They don't need any gaming news coverage, the gaming news needs them.
I've never played D2 or the first in the series, but I've seen enough videos over the years about D2 that I'm able to rate D3 from my Beta experience. I so far like the aspect of D3 gameplay wise. Seems well polished and was very addicting! I would say 8.7/10 just to be different =]
I cried alone every single night. It felt like every day that passed here stole another piece of my real life away. After i cried, I’d go and fight as hard as I could. My only thought was winning, moving forward, and getting stronger. — Asuna Yuuki
I've played beta. It's 10 material. But 9 is acceptable.
I'd give it a 9 because everything about the game rules except for its skill UI and the loss of the regular Battle.Net lobby.
9/10 because every big game gets that no matter if its good or not.
Nothing makes me angrier than these stupid ratings and scores, because any big title will be bought off to get a 9/10 at least. Diablo 3 won't get lower than a 9/10 because activision will pay everyone and their mother off to give it good scores
The Main, aka the only one that matters
Consider the ocean waves, and how the moon's force guides them this way and that across the earth's surface. Human life is an insane coincidence. We are an instance of the universe becoming conscious of itself, yes, old news but always worth review.
No, they really aren't. I've flopped between main attack runes on the Monk I have in the beta so many times that there should be virtual wear on the menu. If I want to clear a ton of people out, I pick the Piercing Trident rune. If I want knockback, I go Fists of Thunder with the Thunderclap rune. I haven't played D2 in literally forever, but I distinctly remember having to re-roll because the build I made just simply didn't work at all and made my character unplayable. That's not choice, that's shitty design. If you want to have to look information up online just to get your character to function, then continue to play D2, because I haven't heard anything about them stopping D2. I'd much rather play a game where my character both works and offers me the ability to choose between things like stuns, superior AoE and knockback versus one a game that keeps me from experiencing it because I have to push the buttons in the correct order.It often forces me to take abilities i really dont want at all and some passive abilities are just so hurtfull with their "nobrain" choice it makes my eyes bleed... therefore again,they are stripping you of actual choice
Why? DNF was an over-hyped game that was truly garbage in all respects, where D3 is a seamless experience and a fantastic game that plays great and looks great. I feel extremely confident in saying that if this game was renamed and put out by an indie studio, people would be praising this game for being a marquee title and 'revolutionizing the industry', and that's honestly pathetic when personal hatred for the developer/hard-core nostalgia clouds your judgement on the game.What it really should get is the Duke Nukem Forever treatment to be honest.
I'd agree with this. I'd also posit that since we don't get a ton of available features in the beta that the full game will have, if those other features are as good (if not better) than the beta offering, this game could easily score high 80s and low 90s. It's still not truly revolutionizing anything, just making a lot of clunky things not clunky and streamlining existing features to make them less cumbersome, which is fantastic but not brain-explosive.From my brief time flirting with the beta, I'd go with 8.0 - 8.5. It's nothing ground-breaking, so 9.0 or 9.5 seems a bit high, but it was still a solid game imo, and felt enough like Diablo.
I'm pretty sure the game reporting media will be nerd-gasming so intensely because blizzard released Diablo 3 that it will get top scores whether it deserve them or not.