Ahtman wrote:
88% Metacritic. Why does that seem familiar? Oh yeah,
Diablo 2 has the exact same score.
87.64% on Gamerankings
I understand for some it is hard to understand that simply not liking something doesn't make it actually bad, but it is true. For instance I don't enjoy Skyrim, but many did, and it seems like a fine game, it just didn't do it for me. I won't run around calling it horrid just because I didn't like it. The core gameplay in Diablo 3 is solid, and if you think it is horrid, you must have thought that Diablo and Diablo 2 were also horrid, as it is essentially the same. The level up system is different, but the point and click mayhem is the same. The story was Ok, and probably not as good as 2, to be sure, but then expectations were through the roof, which has a habit of making anything seem lackluster. Was it a great game? Nah. Was it a good game? Most certainly. Much of the problems are external; if it didn't have RMAH and 'always online' I don't believe we would be having this discussion.
Yeah... ratings based on a faulty numerical system that has no meaning whatsover, made by people who get paid for giving higher ratings... these are the true judge of quality games right?
IMO D3 was worse then D2 in every way, except I guess updated graphics, though the loss in atmosphere kind of hampers that too. Classes, skill system, level up system, combat, loot, enemies, story... it was all better in D2, even before LoD.