@liononzion

1) It's just not gonna happen...

2) That's a rumor, and analysts have repeatedly said, there is no way in hell Microsoft and Sony would do that, if Nintendo wasn't going to do it as well, for obvious reasons that they'd get destroyed in competition.

3) Since 1 isn't going to happen, neither will 3. I mean, there will be online support, but its going to be shoddy. Why would they waste alot of money on this if the strongest games on the console are Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Yoshi etc? Nintendo's hits are single player, and local multi, the consoles are built around this.

4) Yup, that's going to happen. That's what Nintendo is, they are a game developer/publisher/console maker. They are best at making games because they own the system, and publish them- they have a distinct advantage in developing the highest quality games for their own system.

@sefrabu

you probably didn't feel the same "magic" as you did with Diablo 2, because D2 was made by an entirely different development team than Diablo 3.

The developers of Diablo 2 left Blizzard

@Hard_Target

It's obviously implied.

Otherwise that would be like saying "I don't know about other people, but I played Gears of War and FIFA 2011, and I will continue to support (insert developer of only one of either of those games here).

After the whole Bing search algorithm incident, Microsoft really should have learned to just accept the loss and pay up.

@SilverCrowz

Blizzard did not develop Diablo II.

Blizzard North did

@Giancarlo

Nice try, but you're mentioning the PUBLISHER. yes, the publisher has remained Blizzard Entertainment, but the developers were in Blizzard North.

By the way that attribution is justified, you might say EA made Portal 2 for the 360, because they published it.

In the review, the development of the first 2 diablo games are misstated as Blizzard, Entertainment.

Blizzard North developed the first two Diablo games. The devs in the studio left Blizzard, and the different lead developers took over.

Gamespot, give credit where credit is due.

@holyballz

Not being meant to be played single player is not an excuse for lack of LAN.

LAN is multiplayer, yet not included. Something tells me the online only is for reasons other than gameplay....

@darkfall_225

Yup, Gamespot scores are highly inflated anyway. The complaints about the 7.5 wouldn't be here if they didn't constantly hand out 8's and 9's everywhere.

It is still an awful review though. The hour-length of the campaign isn't mentioned, split-screen functionality isn't explained (which is important, because while the game says it is there, it is only for Guerilla mode, not campaign.) It also doesn't mention the who idea of the U-play pass being required for the online mode.

If reviews are made to help people be informed buyers, this is not a good review. That's probably why you get many people looking at reviews to revalidate their opinion on a game they already have- rather than getting info before buying

@lpsyco666

You usually have a choice between stealth and loud shooting battles. Though some segments force you to be stealthy, or force you to go loud and assault. Either way, you rarely can just sneak past enemies in the game, loud or quietly you have to kill them.

The entire campaign isn't worth replaying, but some levels are. You unlock strong weapons once you finish levels in the campaign, so you can use them to go back and finish extra objectives in earlier levels or try a harder difficulty.

The difficulty of the game is just about normal, but you are given challenges that encourage you to complete objectives the hard way. The more you like playing stealthily, the longer the campaign lasts because most challenges focus on beating levels without being noticed.