Is Diablo 3 a flop ?

  • 74 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by indzman (18150 posts) -

Is Diablo 3 a flop?

#2 Posted by SRTtoZ (4800 posts) -

Yes 3.5 million in 24 hours shattering records is a flop.

#3 Posted by tar1901 (135 posts) -

Yes 3.5 million in 24 hours shattering records is a flop.

SRTtoZ

Marketing and hype => record sells.

The game is meh...

Wizard shoots magic missile based on the weapong damage cause it takes too long to implement a spellcaster mechanic.

 

I need to cast a fireball spell, squire fetch me the big battle axe.

 

 

#4 Posted by Teutonic_Terror (23 posts) -

No it's not a flop people just want something to **** about, especially the small things.

#5 Posted by Eraldus (399 posts) -

Yes 3.5 million in 24 hours shattering records is a flop.

SRTtoZ
12 years wait + hype + blizzard name behind it = explanation for your argument. Also,the game is not a flop, it just isn't worth the 60$ behind it, but, if you don't mind paying 60 bucks for a game like this, be my guest...
#6 Posted by dzimm (4651 posts) -

Is Diablo 3 a flop?

indzman

6.3 million sold in the first week (most ever for a PC game). Professional review average of 89% at Metacritic.

Neither of these things are indicative of a flop.

#7 Posted by urbansys (232 posts) -

Yes i think this game is well worth the 60 bucks. Its very fun and engaging! To complain about the internet requirment and to drop its score because of that is amazing to me. To me, someone who is always connected to the internet anyways, refuses to believe people really care tha much about something so simple when most of D3 players play World of Warcraft anyhow which also requires a internet connection. Honestly, we have become a nation of me, me, me first and enitilement that its just getting out of hand....

#8 Posted by sblazed (373 posts) -

The game is garbage compared to what It could have been. Huge budget potential, talented teams, the final result is something you'd expect from a middle way editor. Horrible and unsocial battle.net 2.0, boring and un addicting itemization, even more linear and shallow than before, bad hitboxes, '' Of course, of course! Just as the dead rose around the Stranger, the sword pieces drove the goatmen to madness.'' lol writing, lackluster final fight, No pvp are they serious? The game is so short and linear you can tell how they put the least possible effort. Cheap cash-in hype and built to not compete with WoW.

 

Vivendi blow.

#9 Posted by gix47 (669 posts) -

the always online thing works like this..if WoW servers go down,so does diablo

#10 Posted by kaealy (1466 posts) -

[QUOTE="SRTtoZ"]

Yes 3.5 million in 24 hours shattering records is a flop.

tar1901

Marketing and hype => record sells.

The game is meh...

Wizard shoots magic missile based on the weapong damage cause it takes too long to implement a spellcaster mechanic.

 

I need to cast a fireball spell, squire fetch me the big battle axe.

 

 

Is that really true? That's pretty awful if so.
#11 Posted by Fandango_Letho (5412 posts) -
Diablo III is awesome. Problem is, now a lot of people are acting like if the first and second Diablo games were the best thing next to sliced bread. Thing is, most of you guys have not played that game in half a decade. So, how can you even judge?
#12 Posted by crognalsen (71 posts) -
[QUOTE="Fandango_Letho"]Diablo III is awesome. Problem is, now a lot of people are acting like if the first and second Diablo games were the best thing next to sliced bread. Thing is, most of you guys have not played that game in half a decade. So, how can you even judge?

This is very true. I played Diablo 2 with a friend online last year and we couldn't get it to it like back in the old days. The game suffered from much worse lag then D3 and if you got to far apart and one person killed the boss only one person would get credit. That means the other person has to leave the game and come back in to complete the quest. When you had two summoning classes like Necromancer and Druid at the same time the lag made it near unplayable. This is not taking into account the terrible graphics at 800x600 resolution. On the flip side we can play Diablo 3 just fine and enjoy it without all the nuisances of Diablo 1 and 2.
#13 Posted by sblazed (373 posts) -

Diablo III is awesome. Problem is, now a lot of people are acting like if the first and second Diablo games were the best thing next to sliced bread. Thing is, most of you guys have not played that game in half a decade. So, how can you even judge?Fandango_Letho

 

By the great experience we had back in the days? Of course now the graphics are dated and the servers run on some low end hardware but this doesnt erase the great formula that was D2 and most of it revolve around a good multiplayer which D3 lack. Give me Diablo 2 2.0 with improved graphic, quality servers and a few additions there and there and I would play it and enjoy it, trust me.

#14 Posted by evilthecat13 (3 posts) -
Agreed. The haters can whine all they want, for I am going to keep enjoying the game for at least months, if not years.
#15 Posted by evilthecat13 (3 posts) -
Does it just suck being you?
#16 Posted by bloodling (5822 posts) -

sblazed wrote: Horrible and unsocial battle.net 2.0

(wont let me quote for some reason)

You can chat... What else do you want? A guild? I couldn't care less about guilds for that game but that's your opinion.

boring and un addicting itemization

sblazed

Again, what did you expect? Is there supposed to be something overly exciting about getting loot? It's all about the graphics and the gameplay.

even more linear and shallow than before

The game is so short and linear you can tell how they put the least possible effort.

sblazed

Clearly you can't tell how much effort they've put into this game. This type of game has to be more or less linear for the story to make sense. Besides, there are side-quests and areas that are optional to the main quest... I don't understand the trend of thinking that any type of game is better if it's not linear. Also, you can choose whatever quest you want to do at any time. Games that aren't linear typically give you the option to choose which quest you want to do first, which is not a big deal, or just throws you into a huge world like Skyrim does. Some games are better if they're not linear, but this one clearly isn't one of them imo.

No pvp are they serious?

sblazed

PvP is coming... Arena-restricted PvP is not a big deal for me at all...

#17 Posted by _fark_ (577 posts) -

To be fair the previous Diablo games were meh until they release the expansions and fixed most of the bugs / added more stuff. D3 feels like they have only released half a game tho, so much missing from what D2 had.. charms/enchanting/socketing.. blah blah. The item drops are badly implemented, why is a rare item so much more powerful than legendary ones? They got a lot of stuff to fix to make this game good. I would expect an expansion in the next 6 months which will make this game what it should have been.

#18 Posted by sblazed (373 posts) -

sblazed wrote: Horrible and unsocial battle.net 2.0

(wont let me quote for some reason)

You can chat... What else do you want? A guild? I couldn't care less about guilds for that game but that's your opinion.

[QUOTE="sblazed"]

boring and un addicting itemization

bloodling

Again, what did you expect? Is there supposed to be something overly exciting about getting loot? It's all about the graphics and the gameplay.

even more linear and shallow than before

The game is so short and linear you can tell how they put the least possible effort.

sblazed

Clearly you can't tell how much effort they've put into this game. This type of game has to be more or less linear for the story to make sense. Besides, there are side-quests and areas that are optional to the main quest... I don't understand the trend of thinking that any type of game is better if it's not linear. Also, you can choose whatever quest you want to do at any time. Games that aren't linear typically give you the option to choose which quest you want to do first, which is not a big deal, or just throws you into a huge world like Skyrim does. Some games are better if they're not linear, but this one clearly isn't one of them imo.

No pvp are they serious?

sblazed

PvP is coming... Arena-restricted PvP is not a big deal for me at all...

Chat ? Yea subpar chat. Hold on there, you really think that matchmaking is any better than selecting and creating your games ? Lol no need to say more. All about the graphics and the gameplay ? I think you forgot the whole point of a rpg, more pricesely of a hack'n'slash such as Diablo. FUN gears grinding is a major element to every rpg if you want any kind of replay and longevity, switching the good loots to random elite mobs, turning legendaries into subpar items and overall poor and uninteresting affixes. You know anybody blowing 2k hours in dinasty warriors and games like that ? I bet not. SPOILER in this paragraph Or not. The whole game is on rail, you can't skip x or x quest and im not talking about the random mini events scattered around ( which are good imo but nothing outstanding ). You can't even switch betwen the acts unless you make another game, this is bad design in essence. The game is short and talking about the story making sense, sorry but Tyrael raising up a zombie epidemic by falling down doesnt make any sense, at least ACT1 is the most interesting and the cinematics are good. Pvp is coming but in how long ? Remember how they had arenas running at blizzcon 1 year ago, how could they, BLIZZARD not implement this in the final product. Hey id give you a team of 10 and in 3 weeks you could pull off 1 or 2 good arenas into the game without problem. Better yet, how hard it is to add a duel option ala WoW. No no this isn't worthy of my expectation, they really cut it low to turn this into the biggest cash-in as possible, we're not in 1995 anymore, Blizzard and vivendi swim in their own money and apparently their greed has no limit.
#19 Posted by najerius (13 posts) -

If they do bring it to the consoles, I'll pick it up for 1200 microsoft points on xbox as that's actually what it's worth in terms of effort to develop the game. 

#20 Posted by klitfelt (1987 posts) -

A flop would have been if the game really really sucked but its actually a decent RPG game. But as a Diablo game its not that good compared to D1 and D2.

#21 Posted by RTHKI (161 posts) -

[QUOTE="indzman"]

Is Diablo 3 a flop?

dzimm

6.3 million sold in the first week (most ever for a PC game). Professional review average of 89% at Metacritic.

Neither of these things are indicative of a flop.

metacritic score is meaningless
#22 Posted by MegaMatt91 (462 posts) -
[QUOTE="SRTtoZ"]

Yes 3.5 million in 24 hours shattering records is a flop.

Eraldus
12 years wait + hype + blizzard name behind it = explanation for your argument. Also,the game is not a flop, it just isn't worth the 60$ behind it, but, if you don't mind paying 60 bucks for a game like this, be my guest...

Yeah you're right. $60 for something youll get years of playtime out of - what a rip off.
#23 Posted by MegaMatt91 (462 posts) -
[QUOTE="dzimm"]

[QUOTE="indzman"]

Is Diablo 3 a flop?

RTHKI

6.3 million sold in the first week (most ever for a PC game). Professional review average of 89% at Metacritic.

Neither of these things are indicative of a flop.

metacritic score is meaningless

Urgh. There is so much annoying me about the community, I think I am just going to opt out of forums unless I need to ask for help. Games were so much more enjoyable before I started going online. A flop is generally classed as barely, or non profitable for the company. Diablo 3 made over $350 million in a day. A flop is also generally poorly reviewed, hence why metacritic is not meaningless.
#25 Posted by Eraldus (399 posts) -
[QUOTE="Eraldus"][QUOTE="SRTtoZ"]

Yes 3.5 million in 24 hours shattering records is a flop.

MegaMatt91
12 years wait + hype + blizzard name behind it = explanation for your argument. Also,the game is not a flop, it just isn't worth the 60$ behind it, but, if you don't mind paying 60 bucks for a game like this, be my guest...

Yeah you're right. $60 for something youll get years of playtime out of - what a rip off.

For me, and for a lot of people, 60$ is too much for what it is worth for... What? Am I wrong to have expected a bit more from the game I've waited for years as a Diablo fan? I guess not...
#26 Posted by MegaMatt91 (462 posts) -
Tell me something else you can pay $60 for and get 1000+ hours out of.
#27 Posted by kaealy (1466 posts) -
Tell me something else you can pay $60 for and get 1000+ hours out of.MegaMatt91
Almost every game created that doesn't have a time limit? You could get 1000+ hours out of pong. Pretty bad argument that a game lasts for said amount of hours because you CAN play it that much, doesn't mean that any sane person besides the fanboys or the MMO crowd will do it.
#28 Posted by kaealy (1466 posts) -
[QUOTE="RTHKI"][QUOTE="dzimm"]

[QUOTE="indzman"]

Is Diablo 3 a flop?

MegaMatt91

6.3 million sold in the first week (most ever for a PC game). Professional review average of 89% at Metacritic.

Neither of these things are indicative of a flop.

metacritic score is meaningless

Urgh. There is so much annoying me about the community, I think I am just going to opt out of forums unless I need to ask for help. Games were so much more enjoyable before I started going online. A flop is generally classed as barely, or non profitable for the company. Diablo 3 made over $350 million in a day. A flop is also generally poorly reviewed, hence why metacritic is not meaningless.

Metacritic is meaningless because it's statistics, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. That's a reason why that quote exists.
#29 Posted by MirkoS77 (7625 posts) -

Yes i think this game is well worth the 60 bucks. Its very fun and engaging! To complain about the internet requirment and to drop its score because of that is amazing to me. To me, someone who is always connected to the internet anyways, refuses to believe people really care tha much about something so simple when most of D3 players play World of Warcraft anyhow which also requires a internet connection. Honestly, we have become a nation of me, me, me first and enitilement that its just getting out of hand....

urbansys
It amazes you? The DRM directly affects gameplay. Want me to elaborate on why? It's not just getting connected and once in everything's golden. It's not.
#30 Posted by Eraldus (399 posts) -
Tell me something else you can pay $60 for and get 1000+ hours out of.MegaMatt91
I could name A LOT of games that I still play to this day and that are/were much cheaper than Diablo 3... I won't name these games in here because I'm sure that some fanboy out there will jump at me and say things like "ZOMG TAHT GAEM SUCKZ!!1!!1 U HAVE NO GAMEING TASTE!1!11!!"
#31 Posted by xxMidgetxxJ (240 posts) -

The one guy who brought up the average critic review of 89%. Your oblivious, don't you know Blizzard is paying them? The real reviews are the ones giving 8's, 7's and 6's because thats what the game deserves. Not the 100's, 97's or 90's. Gtfo.

#32 Posted by Vraeth (1208 posts) -

http://www.gamespot.com/diablo-ii/

Huh, that's weird.

D2 scored... the EXACT. SAME. THING.

Posers are too young to have played the originals (i.e. people who say D3 is a flop).

D2 even got a LOWER metascore.

#33 Posted by UtahMtnBiker (1 posts) -

I'm almost as disappointed with Diablo 3 as I was with Duke Nukem. Both had great potential, both we waited years for, and both were a major disappointment.

Blizzard... you are better then this! Blizzard, you yourself, set the bar very high. And you failed to reach even a mid level with this one.

#34 Posted by kaealy (1466 posts) -
D2 even got a LOWER metascore.Vraeth
Yup, that's because reviwers back then still had something called integrity. I spent hours upon hours on D1, even bought Hellfire. D3 is awful and we should have gotten more than we did, every diablo fan should be disappointed.
#35 Posted by murstdurst (303 posts) -

It's a flop if it doesn't make equal to or more than it did to develop. And seing as the game has sold more than 6 mio. already, i don't think it's  a flop ;) - and it has NOTHING to do with quality

 

And do you guys in the us really pay as much for pc games as you do for console games? i saw someone saying it cots 60$- here in europe we pay a little more than half a console games price. And with D3 we get 10 times (or more) more gaming time than your average console games. 

#36 Posted by Megotaku77 (418 posts) -

Metacritic is meaningless because it's statistics, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. That's a reason why that quote exists. kaealy

Then there are facts:

When game companies write developer salary bonuses into their contracts based on Metacritiic aggregate scores, Metacritic is not meaningless.  Quoting cliches doesn't make your grossly uninformed opinion any more valid.

#37 Posted by _fark_ (577 posts) -

Right now the game is not a flop, it has sold a lot of copies and made a lot of money. 

 

In terms of longtivity, which is what the devs are aiming for, its going to be a flop. There just isn't the replayability that D2 had, its there but its very week. Come back in 2 months and ask the same question again.

#38 Posted by MegaMatt91 (462 posts) -
Stop comparing D2 1.13 to D3 1.01
#39 Posted by PetJel (3723 posts) -

D3 is not a flop. Most criticism is on the online SP anyway. And people always get disapointed if they have certain expectations, it's the same with every big release. I havn't enjoyed a game like this in some time. Will be playing for a long time to come and many will with me.

#40 Posted by sireltonjohn (173 posts) -
this guy didn't get paid it seems: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/5777-Diablo-3
#41 Posted by DullBozer (515 posts) -

Right now the game is not a flop, it has sold a lot of copies and made a lot of money. 

 

In terms of longtivity, which is what the devs are aiming for, its going to be a flop. There just isn't the replayability that D2 had, its there but its very week. Come back in 2 months and ask the same question again.

_fark_

 

I agree, much more casual than before, won't keep me interested for that long. You don't build a character anymore, you just unlock powers you can swap at will. Its all about grinding for gear now... but you end up just buying stuff on the AH most of the time. The name and the hype sold, in a way D1 and D2 are responsible for the sales numbers D3 has now, but this feels like Diablo for consoles with dumbed down everything and a shorter play time. Oh well, at least it runs on my old laptop.

Im hoping someone else releases a slasher RPG that resembles what Diablo was, this ain't cutting it.

#42 Posted by rpgdude2008 (1 posts) -
In D2 I could make 4 champs the same class and develop them all differently. In this joke of a game I can make 1 champ and repeat the same content 4 times. With tax I payed $64 for a game worthy of a console weekend rental. Beat it on all 4 settings in under 2 weeks. Me and two friends have quit playing completely. Nothing but a money grab. I hope it backfires on blizzard hard. Gamespot had to be payed for the review, its complete BS and flat out full of lies.
#43 Posted by Shadowchronicle (26039 posts) -
D3 is actually pretty popular outside of the internet, and the internet is pretty vocal.
#44 Posted by Cifrocco (22 posts) -

Pros: Diablo 3 is substantially similar to Diablo 2 in many respects, gameplay, overall feel, music, sounds.

Cons: Diablo 3 is substantially similar to Diablo 2 in many respects, gameplay, overall feel, music, sounds.

Despite the new features, skill tree, characters, etc. the game really feels like a strong deja vu of its predecessor. I'm enjoying it, but would have liked something more. I have a very powerful PC with two Crossfire cards and whenever I'm walking and a new voice clip has to load and play the game action freezes for a second before the voice starts. Detracts from the flow, but I guess a small gripe. I don't like to have to log in to play my single-player campaign. Sometimes the connection is dropped while I walk away to go eat and the map/mission needs to be restarted. Don't like that at all.

#45 Posted by dzimm (4651 posts) -

[QUOTE="kaealy"] Metacritic is meaningless because it's statistics, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. That's a reason why that quote exists. Megotaku77

Then there are facts:

When game companies write developer salary bonuses into their contracts based on Metacritiic aggregate scores, Metacritic is not meaningless.  Quoting cliches doesn't make your grossly uninformed opinion any more valid.

But didn't you know?  Publishers pay off reviewers for artifically inflated scores.  Although in this case I suppose they paid them to not inflate the score so that they wouldn't have to pay royalties.

#46 Posted by Wolf-Man2006 (4187 posts) -

Hardly. Its one of the biggest pre-ordered PC games for Amazon along with being the fastest-selling PC game of all time.

#48 Posted by leeveeu (3400 posts) -
It's a good game. The only problem is that there are TOO many good games to be played instead of being stuck in the eternal D3 grinding after having finished it once.
#49 Posted by maulstik (95 posts) -

Diablo 3 at its current state feels like a game that only took then 2 years to complete... instead of 6+. Yet the mindless blizzard drones keep feeding the cow.

#50 Posted by Ram0s87 (249 posts) -

Idk what most of you guys are even talking about...this game is amazing.  Sure it has some issues that need to be addressed, big deal. But just think about how awesome the expansions will be for this game, it has so much potential.  I'm sure blizzard has it all planned out...people just love to whine especially since blizzard is expected to have such high standards now.