Rock, Paper, Shotgun

How Diablo III’s Solo Experience Reveals A Hollow Game

By John Walker on May 18th, 2012 at 10:00 am.

The game starts satirising itself.
My companions have stopped following me. The map has suddenly blanked out. The dungeon doors aren’t opening. And despite my just having cleared out a two-storey dungeon for the second time, there hasn’t been a checkpoint in over a half an hour. If I quit out to fix it, the entire area map will be reset yet again (a previous quit to see if there was any way to raise the difficulty had already done this to me once, and is how I discovered the dungeon wasn’t checkpointing), so in total an hour’s play time lost, and, well, here’s the thing: Diablo III just isn’t brilliant enough to warrant this.

Diablo III is mostly very slick. It’s a very decent game. The first three hours are very gratifying, a sense of having everything done right. It’s an aRPG born of decades of experience, streamlined and minimalist to the point of diamond-like perfection. But much like a perfect diamond, it bears a lot in common with a bit of glass. That all-encompassing need to Just Keeping Clicking is there, the sense of continuous, satisfactory progress is in place. You’re never not improving your equipment, skills and crafting abilities. It’s the concept of Diablo, and of a decade’s Diablo clones, refined. But with absolutely nothing new.

As I explore Act II, I’m still bewildered as to how they could have taken so long to make a game that adds so little. The engine is pretty enough, lavishly detailed, it does the job, but remains extremely dated in concept – there’s no analogue zoom (you can uselessly zoom right in on your character, which is great for screenshots and not a lot else), you can’t rotate the camera, you can’t interact with the world while the map’s on screen, the inventory covers up the map, and the tool-tips for loot seem completely arbitrary as to whether they’ll show up or not. No, rotating cameras aren’t necessary. But it’s important to keep in mind how relatively primitive the game is, when then taking into account its failings.

And they all come in the form of the always-on DRM. Yes, people are sick of the topic. But that doesn’t make it something that can be ignored. It was because the connection dropped in the solo game I’m playing that all those events in the first paragraph took place. Eventually, about fifteen minutes later, it admitted the connection was gone, and restarting yet again put me back at the last checkpoint, one dungeon and an entire map ago. And nothing – absolutely nothing – interesting lies between me and where I’ve reached twice before.

These failings, the DRM-based brokenness of the game, breaks the spell. While you’re able to just endlessly progress, endlessly improve, endlessly move forward, the illusion is cast around you and there’s enormous fun to be had. But in repeatedly forcing you to pointlessly repeat swathes of the game, it reveals just how little there really is.

Right, but quickly, here are some things I am loving about the game. That seems fair. I love how loot bursts out of chests. It’s so rewarding. I adore how much of the scenery can be smashed, and how satisfactorily it crumbles apart – and especially that it then awards you a bonus for doing this. I love that you can, on occasion, use the environment in fights, albeit infrequently and mostly ineffectively. I love how much care has obviously gone into so much of this stuff – nothing crucial to how the game actually plays, but the set dressing, that belies a love for the sheer act of creation.

But what does Diablo III actually add to the franchise, and even to the genre it created? The skills are made more simple, but in doing so actually end up feeling restrictive. Switching off those limitations only seems to confuse things. The inventory is less of a Tetris-frustration, but in that regard just means you portal to your base, sell all, return, and it plays no meaningful factor. (And the Act II base is hopelessly poorly laid out, meaning running to the one merchant is a bore, and the nearby town a chore.)

Monsters don’t attack in interesting new ways. While what almost everyone wanted was a click-fest, it would have been nice for there to be a reason for having those extra skills. I forget they’re there until I reach the toughest bosses, and then just hammer randomly. I think I’ve died four times thus far, playing solo, and try as I might can find no way to increase the difficulty to anything halfway interesting. I mean, I’ve 87 health potions in my inventory – what are they even for? The game drops so much health in every fight that it’s mostly impossible to get hurt.

The only novel enemy attacks I’ve noticed are the waspy dragonfly things, who just fly away from you, meaning if you’re not playing a ranged character they’re just tedious to fight. And there’s the beasts that cast fear on you, constantly taking away your controls, which has been fun in this many games: none.

The other huge problem is loot and shops. I’ve bought almost nothing from a merchant, since their goods are always generations poorer than anything I’ve looted. And worse, weapon drops haven’t meant anything since the merchant I helped out in Act I sold me weapons literally twice as powerful as I’ve found since. The balancing here is utterly dreadful, and that’s perhaps the most crucial thing for an aRPG to get right.

Of course, people will argue that to solo Diablo is to miss the point. Two responses to that. Firstly, the game does offer a solo game, and is designed to be played that way, so it’s absolutely vital that it be balanced and worthwhile. And secondly, and perhaps more crucially, of all the points above the solo aspect really only affects the difficulty levels – the rest remains an issue no matter how it’s played. Oh, and if you’ve not had server issues, others have, and that doesn’t make server issues okay – kind of a crucial one to remember there.

And yet, all these gripes, all these issues, I’d likely have just clicked past were the game not so woefully and deliberately broken. It’s fascinating to realise just how important the spell is to Diablo, and quite how damaging it is to have it broken. What’s revealed is a hollow game, that in no way fills in the gaps with the frankly abysmal writing. Of the three companions so far, none is even tolerable, and my monk is a sanctimonious moron. My NPC accompaniment repeat their lacklustre lines of nothingness with the sadness of a dementia patient, half the time talking at the same time as a book I’m reading. And as I face repeating the same damned map for a third time, watching my characters stagger about trapped in lag despite my strong, steady internet connection, I just start thinking about Grim Dawn and Torchlight II, and how much I can’t wait to see what they add to the genre. Because as far as I can tell Diablo III, as fun as it is when the spell lasts, has added little more than wantonly stupid DRM.

__________________

« | »

, , , , .

601 Comments »

  1. KikiJiki says:

    Caved, bought a spare copy from a friend (moral victory yay!) last night and gave it a play until the end of the first quest.

    Path of Exile is better, Diablo 3 has niggly issues that really pissed me off. My opinion that the game is trading on the franchise name is undiminished.

    I do hope it gets better.

    • JToTheDog says:

      I did the same. Moral victories are even better than your usual victories, because you get to explain why you’re right.

    • Torn says:

      PoE seemed really lackluster and boring to me (I’ve been in since early beta). D3, for me, is infinitely better.

      I only had network/connection issues the first two nights, and it’s been smooth sailing since then.

      Of course a network/server-based thing is going to be a little unstable at launch, name one game supporting that amount of players (the most pre-ordered pc game in history) that wasn’t.

      I think reviewers should give it a week or so before judging network stability.

      • KikiJiki says:

        I had no problem with network connectivity. My problems were really niggly things that are a step back from D2 like being unable to interact with the world while viewing the full area map, and items not autoequipping when you pick them up and have nothing equipped in that slot.

        I’ve been in PoE since the first free weekend and the prepurchase after that and I found it to have far more engaging mechanics than D3. Everything from skill gems to passive tree via flasks feels like a lot more thought has been given to it than the almost arcadey feel of D3 so far. D3 feels more like Golden Axe than Diablo.

        • Moonshine Fox says:

          That you find it in yourself to make excuses for server issues in a single player game just kind of shows how deluded Blizzvision wants their players to be.

          • KikiJiki says:

            Wat.

            I didn’t say there aren’t server issues, I said I had no server issues. Please actually read before hitting reply as I’m in agreement with what seems to be your POV on the always online thing, I hate it.

          • Phantoon says:

            I think he was actually replying to Torn, but wanted his comment to be nested up higher- or he doesn’t understand how the strange comments system works.

        • Dowson says:

          They actually have an option to autoequip items in empty slots.
          But for some reason its not on be default.

        • wu wei says:

          I got into PoE with the most recent public weekend and bought into the beta immediately after, even knowing it goes open sometime in June. I’m really impressed by how well they’ve tweaked so many aspects of the gameplay, especially the prevalence of equipment modification items and their positions as currency. But it’s the materia-esque skill system that really stands out. I’m only midway through my first Cruel run and am still encountering new skills that would radically change play style.

          Amazingly deep for something written in five years by such a small development team.

        • Afrodisiac says:

          There’s an option to make items auto-equip if you don’t have something there when you equip it. I forget where in the options it is, exactly, but probably under “Gameplay.”

      • Salt says:

        > unstable at launch, name one game supporting that amount of players that wasn’t
        I played a couple of the CoD games’ solo campaigns on launch day, and didn’t seem to suffer any connectivity issues.
        Just sayin’.

        • Ringwraith says:

          “Oh, and if you’ve not had server issues, others have, and that doesn’t make server issues okay – kind of a crucial one to remember there.”
          This says it all really.

          • Phantoon says:

            Yes, exactly. That’s the point that needs to be made, over and over again until people get it. I’ve not had any issues with the internet connection, because I did not buy this game, because I knew exactly what Blizzard had in mind when they designed a game around a real money auction house, and wasn’t about to lie to myself otherwise.

            “And they all come in the form of the always-on DRM. Yes, people are sick of the topic.” John, other people may be, but I’m sick of Diablo 3 being a topic other than “how the fuck did they think they’d get away with this?” Ubisoft tried this before. It was not a good move, and they couldn’t beat piracy. In fact, it energized the community there to be the first to hack each of their new releases. So either they’re completely delusional about piracy, or it was all for the real money auction house.

        • skorpeyon says:

          “Of course a network/server-based thing is going to be a little unstable at launch, name one game supporting that amount of players (the most pre-ordered pc game in history) that wasn’t.”

          That is the full quote you truncated. CoD’s single player isn’t network/server-based. Their multiplayer, on launch days, is usually hellish. Same thing.

          I’m not defending Blizzard, but I am explaining that by stating you could play CoD’s single player mode, which isn’t network/server based, is to miss the statement that was actually made. Blizzard’s single player is network/server based, therefore you have to think of it like multiplayer. Again, doesn’t make it right. Frankly, if they would just make it more like an MMO in one way, where disconnecting saved where you were and what you were doing, or if they at least made checkpoints just before bosses and the like (though I understand it would take away some of the “Holy shit, a boss just smashed through that wall” aspect of the game) I think they’d be far better off.

          If they’re going to make it server-based, at least do it in a way that doesn’t punish someone for something beyond their control. Checkpoints at the beginning of each dungeon level and again just before bosses would make sure you only ever have to wind your way back through ONE level of ONE dungeon if you lose your connection.

          • Baines says:

            I believe the point Salt was making with the truncated quote was that Blizzard chose to add network/server issues to the single player game.

            Yes, you expect network/server issues in an online multiplayer game. Diablo, up until III, had an offline singleplayer option. Blizzard chose to remove that offline option, thus creating the network/server problems for everyone, not just those who wanted to play online. In comparison, Call of Duty keeps its single-player offline. It doesn’t matter if the servers explode on Day 1, you can still play the game.

          • jrodman says:

            The point of course is that Call of Duty made the *correct* choice.

          • SmittyBit says:

            Wow. You completely and totally missed the point of that quote. Read it again, then read your own statement immediately following the quote. That is the entire point man, single player does not have server issues because it is not multiplayer. Diablo 3 requires servers for single player.. To anyone who is fine with that arrangement, PM me, I have a bridge to sell you.

        • SmittyBit says:

          Exactly. Right on the mark.

      • doggod says:

        I have to disagree that reviewers should wait till servers stabilize.
        The reason why is that there will always be the possibility that this recurs,
        it may not be widespread but in a single player situation it doesn’t matter if it affects 1 person or a 1000.
        Lag will always be an issue, a sever malfunction can happen at any time.
        What about when your ISP cycles your IP address in the middle of gameplay.

      • Nallen says:

        Yes because a week is a reasonable amount of time to wait before enjoying a £40 single player game.

      • codename_bloodfist says:

        No, they shouldn’t. If you’re releasing an online game, you should make sure that your network architecture works in advance. This is why GW2 has stress tests, beta weekends, etc.

        This would be somewhat forgiveable if we were talking about an MMO. Diablo 3, however, is not an MMO. It’s a game with a tacked on DRM systems, very much like the one we see in Anno 2070 and other Ubisoft game, that now bites the customers in the ass. There’s absolutely no reason to excuse this kind of behaviour.

      • jalf says:

        But who cares that it’s a server/client-based game? It didn’t need to be! If my singleplayer experience gets ruined because Blizzard decided to run my singleplayer game on their servers, is it not fair to complain?

        By your logic, we shouldn’t blame them for outages either, if they decide to host the servers in hot air balloons either. Because imagine how difficult it is to ensure reliable internet connections to those!

        Well, yeah, that’s got to be tricky, but it’s not my problem. It’d be a self-inflicted problem, it’d be Blizzard making a conscious effort to *introduce* problems and unreliability where none needed to exist.

        They have, after 15 years of work, succeeded in creating a situation where my singleplayer experience depends on their servers being constantly online. And they are unable to keep their servers constantly online.

        There is no excuse. They introduced new, pointless, ways in which the game can fail. Even if it runs perfectly from tomorrow and until the end of time, it is still fair to blame them for every picosecond of lost connections and disrupted playtime.

      • Grygus says:

        I think you’re giving Blizzard way too much slack. “A little unstable” would not have garnered this reaction; Diablo III on launch day was much more than a little unstable. Lord of the Rings Online had almost no problems. The Old Republic had fewer problems, and there was at least a queue system in place on launch day. Hey, you want to know a really comparable game with fewer problems? The last day of Diablo III’s own open beta!

        Throw in Blizzard’s incredibly deep resources, extensive experience with highly popular online games and their own insistence that everyone be online, with the attendant implication that their network is completely reliable, and you have well-deserved backlash.

      • Hematite says:

        As a hardened PoE supporter (everyone should go play it right now!) I have to admit that I find the first two or three areas with a new character dreadfully boring – the opening game is rather like the opening of D2 where you’re left-clicking on zombies and archers with no interesting skills available. It’s better since the last patch now that the rhoas have charge attacks and the zombies crawl up out of the earth though.

        For maximum enjoyment your first skill choice should be an AoE to mix it up a bit, and once you get your first movement based ability it becomes a real delight to play. I have a habit of just playing on through level ups and new loot because I don’t want to take time out from killing stuff to identify some new items or assign some skill points.

      • Bhazor says:

        “Apart from the first two nights”

        Its only been out three days. That means its been unplayable for around 70% of the time you’ve owned it.

        Good thing Blizzard prevent people using lans and private servers isn’t it? Otherwise they’d would of been able to play for longer and you would’ve fallen behind. In a wholly non competitive co op game.

      • skittles says:

        Yes but the instability of launch is going to colour the game experience for so many people, including me. If this were a proper MMO, I would forget soon after, however it is a story based game, I have finished it now, and have no real urge to go back anytime soon.

        Also a note to those who say this is a solo game, you are hugely mistaken. The game allows the appearance of solo play, but is never truly solo. This is evidenced by the fact that anyone on your friends list can jump into your game at any time. The game does not even need to be set to ‘public’ and you don’t even have to invite them, they can come in uninvited.

    • Zanchito says:

      How can you buy it second hand when the game links itself to a Battle.net account? You’d need to buy the whole account.

      I’m interested in this.

    • innociv says:

      I agree. I found PoE a lot more fun.
      The problem with PoE, though, is lack of content from being a small team.

      They’re clearly smarter and better designers when it comes to giving the Diablo game that Diablo players want, but don’t have the man power to actually add enough to the game.

      PoE has a great 20 or so hours of content, the gameplay and mechanics are great, but after that it’s not very fun to repeat or keep grinding.

    • City Builder says:

      It all comes down to personal preference. Personally I’m enjoying Diablo 3 much more than I am Path of Exile. The only thing that I find interesting in Path of Exile is the skill tree (for lack of a better name for such an awesome design and function), other than that to me PoE is another lackluster clone of the Diablo franchise and not very inspiring to me. But since PoE is still in beta it may well change before it’s ready for market, I hope it does, it could be another fun Diablo’esque clone that could turn out to be a lot of fun if they polish it up across the entire game.

      It’s unfortunate that Blizzard decided to utilize this always on DRM, as it is annoying when the internet connection spikes and the player gets a rubber band effect or worse, dropped without the game saving. Fortunately I can say that both my wife and I combined have spent more than 40 hours into the game already (roughly from memory) and I’ve only been DC’d one time but was able to rejoin immediately and she hasn’t been DC’d at all. And the rubber band effect of LAG has only hit me possibly 10 times at most.

      Overall, I still think it was a failed launch, but the game is truly enjoyable and fun. I’d prefer it if I could assign stat points to my character but I don’t suspect that Blizzard is going to change that any time too soon unfortunately. By the time that I’m bored silly with playing D3, I think I’ll be able to honestly say that it was $60.00 well spent.

  2. Caddrel says:

    Merchants sell really good rings and amulets, which change every time you reload the game. Definitely check them out.

    You can change the item labels to be always on, which is a big improvement over the “maybe on” default option.

    Spot on with the other criticisms though. I was able to left-click all the bosses to death with a character focused on magic find.

    • John Walker says:

      Mine are set to always on, yet randomly turn themselves off.

      • caddyB says:

        They turn off when you ALT+tab. Yeah.

      • HexagonalBolts says:

        You might not have noticed this because it’s so stupid that you can’t even believe they did it – you have to press alt to compare a weapon/ring in your inventory with your offhand weapon/ring, which means loot labels have to be fiddled with again every single time you check (or, as the above person mentioned, alt+tabbed) which is just nuts.

        This and the poor launch seem like relatively minor problems in the grand scope of the game, but they are indicative of the other underlying issues – which are all the more strange given the extensive beta and blizzard’s polish-it-forever style of development. I think the core problem is that it needs a few controversial changes that Blizzard weren’t willing to make (for example: revolutionising the way loot works or what is done with unwanted loot).

        Having said all this, the way to play the game is definitely 4 player nightmare(+) difficulty – everything that is fun about normal mode is exaggerated and the sceen is like a constant explosion. Still fairly easy but at least not trivial. At one point we unleashed a herd of about 15 of those charging rhino creatures (including a yellow and 4 blues), took us so many hilarious deaths to finally take them all down. I think the game is designed to be played almost like a Left 4 Dead RPG – a range of difficulty options, drop in and drop out, choose the chapters you like, repeat areas and see if you can do them better, an AI director…

        • mouton says:

          One of my main issues is, you cannot set you difficulty. You have to first grind through the “casual” and “easy” difficulties to get to any meaningful challenge. And by then you are basically replaying the game for the nth time just to get to your desired difficulty level.

          Many people are totally cool about this. I am not.

          • Jeremy says:

            Didn’t you have to do that in Diablo 2 as well? I didn’t think you could move up to Nightmare until after you had completed the Normal campaign.

          • mouton says:

            It was, but it was in the nineties and the formula wasn’t as worn out then.

          • Illykai says:

            Another option is to play in hardcore mode. John said that he’d died 4 times already in the article, which would have been much worse for him with permadeath. Assuming that you’re willing to put up with the possibility of dying from network issues, HC is a way to ramp up the challenge without having to grind through to nightmare, albeit punishing.

          • royale says:

            @illykai The problem with hardcore is that you end up doing the same, overly easy and boring parts of the game–sinking 6-8 hours of time every character–just to get back to the challenging areas where you end up dying. Overall, it’s not so much adding real challenge, just time consuming repetition and frustration.

          • realityflaw says:

            I was a massive fan of HC in D2, it kept me playing for months after I had lost interest otherwise, however w/o choices to make at level up I don’t see it holding my interest in D3.

            Also server issues…

    • KDR_11k says:

      I think the default behavior is to fade them out when the game assumes that you have acknowledged them and decided not to pick the item up so that the labels don’t obscure your vision unnecessary. As in Diablo 2 you can just press alt to make them all reappear.

    • Lobotomist says:

      John , we still remember your Witcher 1 review.

      I thought you learned a lesson since then. Do not review genre you dont like.

      Its very unprofessional.

      As for D3
      When it comes to the genre Diablo itself spawned – it does exactly what Blizzard always does – Takes a long look at the predecessors , removes everything that was not fun and adds everything that proved fun in competition.

      Blizzard are masters of Gameplay. And they prove it again.
      If you dont like D3 you either didnt play it (at release- beta was not representative) or you simply dont really like the genre…

      But than no such game will satisfy you.

      • Big Murray says:

        I don’t remember his Witcher 1 review. What did he say and why should he have changed his mind?

      • Kestilla says:

        First, who is we?

        Second, from his own words he has played the previous Diablo titles and is looking forward to Torchlight II and similar games. I know, for games I really hate and can’t get into, I’m always looking for newer iterations in the same genre so I can hate them, too.

        I know you don’t like what he has to say and that criticisms against Diablo III are like a chunk of Kryptonite hitting you in the face, but that’s your problem.

      • CorruptBadger says:

        When you said, “Blizzard is the master of gameplay”, i instantly disregarded your arguement. Sure they’re relativly good when it comes to general balance and making a game fun for the most part, but I can name a myriad of games in the genres with better or onpar gameplay:

        aRPG – Path Of Exile has much better gameplay, every gameplay system is either deep or expansive and the game actually takes its aesthetic seriously.

        RTS – Definitely blizzards best area of expertise, but Dawn of War 2 and more strategic RTS like the total war serious have very good/on par levels of gameplay

        MMO – WoW may dominate the scene, but it is in no part thanks to its awful gameplay, Rift and SWTOR are honestly better MMO’s, sure both are clunky, but their only short-coming is that they haven’t been in the market long enough to build up a fan base like WoW has.

        Rift has much better talent systems, rifts are for the most part novelty but at least give you reason to get involved with your environment. SWTOR has very strong story-telling and plot archs, but its difficulty is all over the place, and it is very much start and stop, in some places you’ll be excited and yearning for the next part in the story, other places it gets stale and you just want to get it over with, but at every point its still more engrossing than WoW.

        If you wish to respond, I very much hope you can construct a good and supported answer, rather than just abuse or defending blizzard at the cost of even your limbs.

        • Lobotomist says:

          It was his first review , and he basically stated that Witcher 1 is a bad RPG… why ? Because you play predefined character. Good he didnt review Planescape.

          @Kestilla

          I have played many RTS games , but i dont really like the genre. So just saying I played Starcraft does not give me much of authority on the field.

          @CorruptBadger

          I am great fan of Diablolike games. And have been playing POE in beta for looong time.
          POE is slightly complex. But even without watching any pro tips, i managed to create build that is unstoppable even in hardcore mode. Under all POE is simplistic ARPG as it can only be comming from good but small team with limited resources.

          I will not even start on fun factor and gameplay. Play both for a week and you will find your argument laughable.

          As for Blizzard not being master of gameplay in RTS – I think that few hundred millions of Koreans would disagree.

          And WOW having awful gameplay ? – You think it is top played MMO because of its art style ?
          Anyone who ever played MMO might hate WOW for many reasons, but gameplay is not between them.

          Your arguments are totally faulty

          • Bhazor says:

            Both WoW and Starcraft have been long surpassed.

            Through the long sordid history of mankind there has been little evidence for any correlation between popularity and quality.

          • Nevard says:

            While there is indeed no correlation between popularity and quality, it’s still a better argument than just saying “they’ve been surpassed” and qualifying that statement with no evidence at all

          • Zaideros says:

            Just an attempt in vain to limit the amount of hyperbole in discussions regarding D3: “Few hundred millions of Koreans” is not a thing. “One hundred million of Koreans” is not even a thing. According to you South Korea is the 4th most populous nation on earth or what?

            But please, continue your hyperbolic notions of how millions upon millions of imaginary Koreans love the shit out of Blizzard and therefore they are God of gameplay. Despite having made WoW. Which has the gameplay of a half-eaten cow carcass. See, I can use hyperbole too.

        • Zyrxil says:

          Ironic, as “aRPG – Path Of Exile has much better gameplay, every gameplay system is either deep or expansive and the game actually takes its aesthetic seriously” instantly makes me disregard everything you have to say. Path of Exile is a perfect example for why the removal of skill trees and the changed skill setup in Diablo 3 is good. PoE’s giant passive skill tree -looks- interesting, but then you realize it’s all boring passives and the actual skill system is terrible and has you using 1 skill 99% of the time. I wasn’t a convert to D3′s system until I played the PoE beta for 5 hours. Blizz has absolutely done what is right in peeled back the skill tree and making the system more centered around freerer skill builds.

        • 153351 says:

          i stopped reading at “Dawn of War” which was a terribly reviewed terrible RTS. Not in the same ballpark as Starcraft 2, I’m afraid.

        • Felix says:

          I haven’t played PoE, but its skill tree reminds me way too much of Final Fantasy X, which had an awful skill system. I think “needlessly complex” is the best way to describe it. Maybe “complexity in presentation” is better.

          I don’t mind choice, I mind a false sense of choice. Also, it’s F2P, which, to me, means it’ll be a lot more like the myriad free Korean MMOs, which Diablo III (my first Diablo-type game) already feels like (but actually fun).

          • Hematite says:

            The PoE passive skill web is better than the FFX one, although it still might not be for everyone.

            As someone posted about recently, the FFX skill web was actually mostly linear, just arranged so it looked curvy and pretty. The PoE one has heaps of junctions so you can make frequent character development choices – the principle seems to be that you pick a moderately distant key skill you want to get, and then choose one of two or three different routes to get there before thinking about where you want to go next. There are online skill planners you can play with if you’re interested.

            Or, if you specifically don’t like the complexity you can just follow your nose around the web as you level up without breaking your character – the active skills are controlled by the separate loot+gem system so the passive skill web is mostly just for honing your character build.

      • zaphod42 says:

        I have to agree. Before I say I’m having a blast with the game, let me say that I am LIVID about the always-on DRM, I’m getting LAG when playing single player or playing with my roomate on a LAN, and that is just DUMB. Its so arrogant that Blizzard thinks they can force this on us, and then now other companies will think its okay and they can get away with it. Its hostile to their own customers! I never expected the issues would be as bad as they are though, Error37 will hopefully wake everybody up to how dumb DRM really can be. Diablo3, AAA game, completely unplayable on launch day? The launch day they hyped up so much? On May 15th, you can…. watch a login screen. Super fail, Blizzard. I knew the company’s quality was taking a hit with Activision over their shoulder, but wow, this is beyond bad.

        However, the game itself I find to be completely brilliant. I can’t disagree with the RPS article enough, (and I love you guys ^_^). My experiences are almost entirely the opposite.

        I would suggest that you play the game in a group. Yes, they do offer single player, and yes, they add companions and do things to try to make single player viable, so its too bad single player isn’t more fun. But it just isn’t that great, it gets old so fast. I felt the same way about Diablo 2, honestly.

        Diablo 3 is a co-op game. It really is. When you play it that way, rampaging around with a group, trading loot between you, its just so much fun. Its nonstop fun. Kill, kill, kill, level up, new ability, kill, kill, kill, new equipment, kill, kill, finish quest, kill, kill, back to town, kill kill, new equipment…

        Its almost dangerously addictive. This is an MMORPG, without all the MMO bs that gets old. There’s no running around, everything is within immediate walking distance. There’ s no grind, merely playing the game and having fun causes you to level up constantly. There’s no sitting around or collecting 5 bear claws for some dumb quest; the few quests that there are have story and are interesting, rather than being tons and tons and tons of boring quests.

        One of the biggest places I disagree: the mosters are boring? Really? In Diablo2, I felt like I got through everything just click,click,click,click spam your main attack.

        In Diablo3, pretty quick monsters start creating walls, leaving acid trails, shooting projectiles at you that move slow, there’s lots to react to! You have to dodge, position yourself, respond to monster animation tells, etc. The game is MUCH more responsive and involved, and only gets more complicated and harder as you go.

        I would say that perhaps Act I on Normal, especially solo, does not give you a good impression of the game at all.

        Try playing through Nightmare, and things get MUCH more interesting. And for heaven’s sake, find a friend to play with you.

        • nibbling_totoros says:

          A game shouldn’t be considered “good” if you have to grind through 10-12 hours first. If nightmare mode is the “correct” mode to play, they should have simply made that the default mode.

          • BluElement says:

            You don’t grind through 10-12 hours of the game first. You play the game for 10-12 hours and then you can play it again in nightmare where the monsters get changed up. Yes, the comments saying “the game doesn’t get good until nightmare” is just stupid. And it’s completely untrue. The game is good in Normal, and then it gets changed up for replayability in Nightmare.

          • OutSource says:

            Yeah, MMO’s suck. They should just let you have insta- high level since that’s where the real gameplay is.

          • copernicus_phoenix says:

            Well said – I don’t play MMO’s because I don’t want to grind. I want enjoyment – I wouldn’t watch a film which had a boring first twenty minutes, or a TV series with a crap pilot, so why should I wade through a low difficulty level in order to enjoy a game?

        • Milky1985 says:

          So why if nightmare mode is where the game kicks off and where the real game starts does the game say “Congratulations on defeating Diablo 3″ when you finish the game (on normal)?

        • Brise Bonbons says:

          I refuse to give a game a pass for hiding the “fun” stuff in unlocked difficulty modes. This is no better than MMORPGs sealing away the “real game” behind hundreds of hours of leveling and gearing up, and I stopped playing them for just that reason. Time is my most valuable commodity, and if a game doesn’t respect that, I will drop it to play the dozens of games in my backlog which do.

          I played the D3 stress test with 1 friend, and found it negligibly improved over the single player. Mostly we ignored each other and just ran around doing our own thing. Maybe that was because it was still low levels, or normal difficulty, but again, stop wasting my time and let me play the part that’s good if you want to hook me. As it was, I found the game slick enough, but entirely vapid, and not all that fun.

        • RandomGameR says:

          Aside from the anger of the online-only gameplay I agree with this pretty much entirely. The enemies are awesome in this game. Even though they are annoying for my barbarian, my favorite enemies are the little treasure trolls that run away from you and portal themselves out of existence. They always manage to drag me through three sets of champions and I get my butt kicked. I just can’t help but chase them.

          The b/f and I are playing on our cruddy DSL connection and we have had no disconnects aside from server shutdowns the first night. We’re probably just lucky. I’ve been downloading the mac client and soloing my barbarian on another computer and I do get tons of lag during that experience, but it hasn’t caused any deaths or resets. I saw the edge of the world once, but it fixed itself after a minute without disconnecting me.

        • derbefrier says:

          I agree with this the launch is over we all know blizz fucked it up. now lets move on the the important part, you know the actual game? Its fantastic, from level 1 on wards the game is a blast the combat is awesome and the new skill system is wonderful. Normal mode was a bit too easy but it was still just fun playing with my character. Even in nightmare i had to start adjusting my play style to keep from getting murdered in big packs of mobs at least in co-op. i agree diablo gets boring pretty quick by yourself(i never played single player diablo 2 for long always co-op) but man its probably one of the best co-op experiences i ever had (post launch issues of course) This is the main reason i don’t mind the always online, its a good fit for this type of game. I know saying thing like that will upset the hive mind that acts like always online murdered all our firstborn sons and all that crap but i enjoy it and i think blizz did a good job here.

        • Bonedwarf says:

          You say you’re “livid” about the DRM, yet you still bought it…

          YOU are the problem. All the time people with more money than sense accept these measures, it doesn’t matter how fucking livid you are, you’re the reason we’ll continue to see bullshit like this because you didn’t have the balls/brains to vote with your wallet and deny yourself something you wanted on principle. You could have taken a stand. Instead you were a pussy who said “I’m Livid! TAKE MY MONEY!”

          In short, people like you are why PC gaming is fucked. Thanks.

          • ineffablebob says:

            Amen. Quit buying stuff that you disagree with, instead of wailing about it and then throwing your money at the developers anyway.

          • Ragnar says:

            I like playing co-op with my friends more than I dislike that there’s no offline mode, thus I bought a copy. At the end of the day, you have to do what’s best for you. But I’ll continue bringing up the always-online problems, because that still sends a message: “Always online is a bad system for singleplayer games. Blizzard may get away with it, but they still get flack for it, and you’re not Blizzard so just forget about it.”

      • kristian says:

        I’m sorry but you’re wrong..

        1) A reviewer can review anything he/she likes. If we only get reviews by people that love the games they play.. why would we even have reviews?

        2) Blizzard used to be “masters of gameplay”, but sadly those times have faded. D3 has more eyecandy but it is not better than it’s predecessor. There’s alot of FUN elements removed from it and now it’s just a grind.

        D3 adds alot to the franchise but also removes alot of the complexity.

        • lordfrikk says:

          “There’s alot of FUN elements removed from it and now it’s just a grind.”

          This is a Diablo game, they are all grind, what are you even on about?

        • Ragnar says:

          What did you like better about D2? I like D3′s skill system much better, as I always though D2′s system of putting all your points into 1-2 skills and ignoring the rest was kind of stupid.

          I like how in D3 I am changing the skills I use every few levels, while in D2 or Titan’s Quest I used the same skills over and over again through the whole game. It keeps the gameplay in D3 feeling fresh.

          I like the unique events and other small changes that are different each time you play, such that playing through the same level may be different each time, and you don’t know what you’ll find.

          I like the mobs in D3 better, they appear more varied, more natural, and more fun.

          I even like that I can see which of my friends are playing, chat with them to see if they want to play together, and the ease with which we can join up.

          I was a little disappointed when I first played D3, in that it wasn’t the amazing magical thing I was expecting after all the development time and hype, and I found the voice acting to be slightly off-putting at first. But I also think it improves on D2 in most ways (I don’t remember finding Decard Cain’s voice grating in D2, but it was also 10 years ago, so maybe my expectations have changed since then).

      • nibbling_totoros says:

        “If you dont like D3 you either didnt play it”

        Yes, that is the ONLY possible reason why someone could not like Diablo III.

        Your arguments offer no actual defense for Blizzard’s actions; you simply cling onto the faint glory of Blizzard’s past and attempt to justify your own purchase and actions when other people offer legitimate criticisms.

        This is why I love Rock Paper Shotgun; tell me what you really think.

      • liceham says:

        I like the genre fine – or at least, I liked Torchlight, and that was just a compulsive loot-fest. He’s not wrong that Diablo 3 has poor writing, that replaying sections is boring, and that parts of the interface, while overall being streamlined, still don’t make sense and are counter-intuitive. I remember having a lot of fun in Torchlight. I have had no such similar fun in Diablo 3 so far. If we are the minority, that doesn’t make us wrong.

      • ichigo2862 says:

        I see your ploy, you’re trying to draw us into arguing against your opinion on a man giving his opinion on a game! I won’t have it!

      • drewski says:

        Umm…is this the second RPS article you’ve ever read?

        John *loves* ARPGs.

  3. BloodyLlama says:

    May I humbly suggest that you should wait until you’ve started playing Hell mode, and then revisit this? Your opinion may change. Hell is where the game really starts.

    • John Walker says:

      No, the game starts at the start of the game. That is from where it should be judged.

      • BloodyLlama says:

        Diablo 2 has been widely praised, but it has many of the same issues as Diablo 3 does before Nightmare and Hell. The game has uninteresting enemies, it’s too easy, the vendors sell garbage, it’s repetive and lackluster, most of the skills are meaningless, etc.

        This all seems to change when you get to Hell, both on Diablo 2 and Diablo 3.

        • Gnoupi says:

          I had fun in normal in D2.

          I don’t think I actually played a lot of nightmare and hell (mostly because Blizzard was expiring my characters between my several months of playing something else, but that’s another topic).

          Normal was the way to play, for me. The other modes felt artificial to me, with the painful decrease of elemental resistances. But that’s just me.

        • Thunderbeak says:

          This doesn’t change the fact that having to finish the game before you get to play the good part of the game is a terrible system.

          I myself would have stopped playing by then.

          • BloodyLlama says:

            Have you ever played Dead Rising? It does much the same thing and has ended up being one of my favorite games (I cannot say the same thing for its sequel however).

          • Galcius says:

            You’re still missing the point Llama – the game starts at the start of the game, and if the first 10 hours of the game are boring crap that only gets good after finishing it, then that is a serious design flaw.

            Also please spare a thought for those of us who don’t have all the time in the world to play games. I don’t want to waste 3-4 evenings worth of game time slogging through boring repetative dross with the promise of good gameplay after that.

          • Crimsoneer says:

            LLama has a point though, in that it doesn’t mean the game is BAD. EVE Online is also terribad for the first ten hours if you play alone. Hell, EVE is terribad most of the time. But the product as a whole is exceedingly good.

            Don’t get me wrong, I agree with John’s point that played single-player, Diablo III is only ever a “good” game. But I don’t see why you ever WOULD play it solo.

          • psyk says:

            Crimsoneer that sounds to much like sense be gone with you. We used to/still do like paying to play a meta game and look at spreadsheets ;p

          • malkav11 says:

            I’ve played every other Diablo-style game by myself. The only reason I’m not doing that with Diablo III is the DRM. As far as I can tell there’s nothing actually multiplayer about the design, so the only thing that adding more players would bring to the table is the generalized added fun that happens when you play games with a friend, which is in no way specific to any particular game.

          • pkt-zer0 says:

            “As far as I can tell there’s nothing actually multiplayer about the design”

            Well, you only get to control one class in singleplayer, and even then, only use 6 skills at time. Multiplayer opens up the possibilities there.

          • malkav11 says:

            Unless the class skills specifically interact in a way that they didn’t in previous Diablos (and there, really just the Paladin’s auras as far as I know), not really. I’m still limited to the same one class and six skills. The addition of more people means more damage, or healing, or whatever, but it doesn’t automatically lead to group synergies or a more complex, involving battlefield.

            Some examples (from the MMO space, since that’s the main place to find coop RPGing these days) would be Guild Wars, where skills frequently combo with various statuses and skill types that a solo adventurer can’t easily build together by themselves, if they even have them in their chosen classes at all. Or WoW/EQII/similar where adventuring together on regular quests merely leads to killing a bit faster, but soloing group content is only possible with extreme level/gear disparities and the tank/healer/DPS trinity is key to victory.

        • jalf says:

          So what you’ve discovered, my friend, is that in 2012, we expect our games to be better than their 15-year-old predecessors. Are you saying that’s unfair? Are you saying we shouldn’t criticize D3 for failing to be better than the game we bought, from the same company, 15 years ago?

          • Jeremy says:

            It’s not really very consistent though. Half the time people are complaining that it isn’t enough like Diablo 2.

          • Reefpirate says:

            Well, I happen to think that it IS better in a lot of ways. Nitpicky things here and there are annoying, and perhaps not as good as D2… But overall I think it’s a better game. The art is amazing, I prefer the new skill system, etc.

            It just makes me wonder what people remembered about Diablo 2 and how much was just romanticizing a long-ago time. I also wonder whether or not a lot of people actually LIKE ARPGs… I mean they are repetitive, they often don’t offer a lot of challenge, at least not right away… That’s what they are.

        • hbarsquared says:

          And yet, all these gripes, all these issues, I’d likely have just clicked past were the game not so woefully and deliberately broken.

          I think this is his point. All the same flaws from the preivous game are fine so long as the drip feed of loot and levels goes uninterrupted. I’ve been server-punted exactly 3 times, and each time I quit for the night. Once that spell is broken, it’s too easy to see the 15 year old flaws that sitll haven’t been fixed.

          • Jeremy says:

            It is very discouraging to get booted. The other night the servers went down to “grab an update” whatever that means. It ended the night for me as well as that introduced a separate issue where people were failing login or authentication was taking an overly long time. Granted, all these server issues will eventually be worked through, but there are always consequences to spotty launches.

          • bigblack says:

            “I’ve been server-punted exactly 3 times, and each time I quit for the night. Once that spell is broken, it’s too easy to see the 15 year old flaws that sitll haven’t been fixed.”

            Sir/Madam, you hit the nail on the head with this ^^^

            I have been having a reasonable amount of fun with the game (duo with a roommate), but each of the (incredibly aggravating, fun-arresting) 4 times I’ve been disconnected the experience just immediately evaporates, and there’s a massive deflation of desire to re-login to find out how much progress I’ve just lost. I am a big fan of the graphics, art design, and physics in D3, but there is so little of real substance separating it from something like TITAN QUEST that I’m having a bit of buyer’s remorse. If the game was a knock-out I might feel less guilty for supporting their awful DRM idea, but as it is, I’m feeling a tiny bit ashamed for biting.

            Also, I think TQ had a much better and far more varied skill system. In that game it felt as if I was making decisions which shaped my violent little avatar, whereas D3 is just a straight linear, no-choice path of progression. Perhaps I’m doing it wrong?

        • drewski says:

          Diablo 2 on Normal = fun.
          Diablo 2 on harder difficulties = LOL WRONG BUILD BAD LUCK DIE NOW

          Eugh.

          • Hematite says:

            I’m getting a bit off topic here, but the most successful approach I found to paying D2 was to pick a build which seemed fun to play and run with it as far as I could. It was fun, but completely the opposite of the popular min/max builds which are “required to be competitive” or whatever that is. Sure, sometimes it got really hard in the second act of Nightmare but in single player that’s not meaningfully different than it getting hard in the second act of Hell.

            Like I said, no use if you’re playing competitive multiplayer and only good co-op if your partner feels the same way. I find it a very useful philosophy which set me free from obsessing over build viability, and I mention it because I don’t often hear other players saying the same thing.

      • DickSocrates says:

        A funny thing about this always on DRM for single player is that when playing other online games like this (I’m thinking PSO on the Dremcast, my experience with PC titles in this genre is limited) and your connection dropped, you could still keep playing like it was single player. All that would happen is the previously human controlled players would stop responding. Now we can’t even play single player games without a connection and when it fails, it’s handled in the most cack-handed way imaginable.

        The tired meme ‘Remember when gaming used to be fun?’ couldn’t be more true. What Blizzard/Activision are doing is only THEIR visison of the future and it will only succeed if we let it. It’s only a game and it risks ruining every future game. So cause trouble.

        • KDR_11k says:

          PSO had serious item duping issues. Diablo 2 allowed you to choose whether you want closed Battle.net to prevent cheating or open Battle.net to not require constant online connections. Well, Diablo 3 decided that everybody should play closed Battle.net and dropped the alternative…

      • Enzo says:

        Reviewing D3 after only finishing Normal mode is kinda ridiculous, cause guess what – if you finished the game on Normal then you actually didn’t finish the game. Other difficulty modes (or new game+, whatever you want to call them) have a shitload of new monsters, new abilites for Elite monsters, tons of new loot, new crafting options. It’s really great.

        Also, RPS is really saying that Diablo 3 is a mediocre hack and slash that adds nothting to the genre? Well then you’re gonna be really disappointed by Torchlight 2 then, cause that game literally adds nothing to hack and slash games.

        • Orija says:

          Well guess what- this isn’t a review.

        • KDR_11k says:

          You do not have to finish a game to review it. Leaving aside that some games have no end you are trying to convey the experience a normal user would have. I doubt that the average Diablo 3 player is going to play a lot of Hell difficulty.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            You really do have to finish a game and exhaust every mind numbing corner to properly review a game, however:

            This is not a review and the points raised are very valid.

          • mouton says:

            Of course, you might argue that – for you – the only proper review is a gamer blog post made by some fellow who played the game for 100 hours. But in what we know as “review community” you do not have to finish the game. Its goal is not to thoroughly judge a game, but to give an impression.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            You want to send that statement to Edge or RPS or hell even IGN with your CV and see how far out of the building you get laughed.

            I know of 2 review scenes. The lazy kind to ignore, the aforementioned gamers blogs and you tube video’s who rush to be the first to produce a review and who’s opinion is not worth anything.

            The other scene is the serious journalistic scene who do not publish reviews until they have fully played the game.

            Why do you think RPS has not yet published their Diablo 3 Review?

          • rargphlam says:

            I hate to burst your self-righteous bubble, but this is a review, and you can review without having it be comprehensive. Any time any one examines something and attempts to analyze it for it’s strengths and weaknesses, it’s a review. The additional meaning of comprehensive you are adding to review is neither accurate or beneficial; yes there are a bunch of chucklefucks that rush out to discuss something with only a cursory glance, but don’t discount all non-comprehensive reviews because of them.

          • jrodman says:

            Having spoken in person with a variety of professional reviewers, some of them from those very organizations, and having interacted on line in a game review community for many years — a place where people who are very into the idea of game critique woule hang out — I can say you are talking crap.

            Completing a game has basically no bearing on the ability to review it. It’s a nice perk to be able to talk about the entire arc, but for many game types it’s simply not needed, and for long games it simply is not plausible.

            Expecting reviewers to sink 100 hours into titles before being permitted to write reviews is simply going to result in worse reviews. That’ s long past the point where your views are fresh and nuanced.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            @jrodman – I guess you’re not going to name your sources then?

            I’ll name one kinda small name who is involved in this area of the industry who agrees whole heartedly with me,

            John Bain i.e the Cynical Brit i.e Totalbiscuit

            Also, to keep a track of those fresh and nuanced ideas, I have a little helping aid – A notebook, or if writing notes isn’t your cup of tea, how about a Dictaphone. You know, those journalistic stalwarts.

            Other higher tech solutions are also available.

            News just in! Keith Stewart agrees with me.

          • jrodman says:

            Congrats on name dropping. I think putting other people’s names on my posts does both myself and them a disservice.

            Regardless, no matter how many names you quote, there still isn’t enough time to be completionist about every game you review. NOR IS THERE A NEED which is the main point.

            Reviewers do not need to talk about the game like historians or scientists. They need to present accurate and nuanced commentary based on play experience and background experience. That has nothing to do with having had the complete experience.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            @rargphlam – I hate to burst your self rigteous bubble, but this is not the review BECAUSE RPS SAYS THIS IS NOT THE REVIEW. It’s as simple as that.

            And guess why this isn’t the review

            BECAUSE THEY HAVEN’T PLAYED IT ENOUGH YET!

            Which is what I said.

            A game review means something very specific. This is an opinion piece.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            @jrodman – Well, the thing about my name dropping is that you can look up those people and hear from their own mouths what their opinion is. You can see what they do for a living. You can see how successful and respected they are.

            What you have done is said that some people agree with you, but I don’t know whose vaulted opinion you are quoting. If it’s joey, your brother who has 7 followers on youtube for his “review channel” then your support is not as strong as mine.

            Still if being associated with you is a disservice, I tend to feel that you should make a compelling enough argument without drawing on the support of others.

            So tell me again how you can provide a review of a game with journalistic integrity without experiencing the complete game properly.

            For example, how can you say review Bastion if you havent played all the levels? What if you get 2 levels in out of 7 and give it a glowing review, only to discover the last 5 levels are pure garbage.

          • rargphlam says:

            People review novels, films, music, and basically every other medium imaginable without ‘fully’ experiencing them.

            The claim you are making, that reviewers some how explore every nuance of a game before publishing a review is asinine. They experience enough of the game to get a clear perspective, then publish a review. ‘Enough’ is dependent on the individual. So yes, there is in that sense a gradation of experience, some have the more complete experience than others, but that does not preclude a less experienced individual to give an accurate review, it merely means they have a greater chance of faulty reasoning.

            And you can’t honestly expect anyone with a timetable to complete a game 100% before giving a review. RPGs, especially JRPGs with their multitudes of timesinks and sidequests, preclude an individual with a time table from getting the ‘full’ experience.

            And this article is a review. It does not matter what RPS or John Walker (bless his ruddy heart) claims it to be. It is a clear and precise critique of certain elements of a medium, talking about the intrinsic qualities of those elements and how they effect the work as a whole. If anything it’s a review that is attempting towards an actual comprehensive review; no single review can be truly comprehensive, and a multitude of reviews covering different topics of a work are still reviews, just reviews with a very particular focus.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Asinine? I believe you are the ass as you have just stated that film reviewers write film reviews without viewing the entire film!

            Book reviewers don’t read the entire book? Come on, you are surely not that stupid.

            I’m also yet to find a music review from someone who leaves halfway through the performance. Usually music reviewers follow a band for weeks on tour over the release of an album.

            I have provided 2 very respected names in very different sectors of the industry who agree with me. Despite your outrageous claims otherwise, you can’t back up your statements with anything. I’m dying to find out which edge reviewer claims he doesn’t play the entire game, I really am.

            And no, this article is not a review of Diablo 3. You can argue semantics all you wish, but nearly every gamer who reads reviews understands that sometimes articles are written about games. Those articles may contain opinion or critiques but reviews they are not.

            So as you have decided to dredge up other industries, take a quick gander at Sean Reids site. He reviews cameras for a living and has some pretty strong, negative opinions of those who only use a camera for an hour or two before writing a review. He believes that to properly review a camera, one needs to use it for weeks and even then, update that review over months. He believes you need to shoot every style of photography, from studio to street and everything in between. You need to use every function exhaustively. Why? Otherwise you cannot portray a product accurately.

            I’m sorry you didn’t make it as a computer game reviewer. I think the problem was that you thought you were just going to be able to play games like you would do as a consumer, just what you enjoy – put together a couple of paragraphs and watch the royalties roll in. Let me tell you, reviewing games for a living is hard draining work. Change your attitude, put some elbow grease into it, take some writing classes and don’t expect it to be “playing games for a living” and you may get somewhere! — Edit – I wrote this last paragraph, in fact the entire post thinking you were jrodman again, this paragraph doesn’t apply to you, but I think you can extrapolate what you need from the post

          • rargphlam says:

            Full experience is different from watching the entire film or listening to an entire album or even especially reading an entire book just once. You can form arguments and thoughts based on a single viewing, but that in no way constitutes a full experience of the film. There are perspectives you may lack, technical details you aren’t aware of or miss the first viewing, things that you might outright miss. I never said they didn’t watch it all the way through at least once, I said they miss the full experience.

            You can play through a game just once to reach the end, see some mechanics, get the baseline, but you might lack thorough knowledge or meaning because of a singular play through. And sometimes a full play through is not exactly necessary to gain a complete understanding or even a decent critical opionion on a game; games constitute larger and different amounts of raw data, one can fairly easily begin to criticize gameplay elements and the engine only after a few hours of play. These elements usually don’t drastically change beyond the beginning, and as such can be fairly easily reviewed. Plot based elements of course require a fuller playthrough, but depending on the amount of content the amount of time required might again prevent a reviewer from a full plot perspective.

            Fullness of experience is equatable to 100% complete experience, and that is entirely impossible to do for all forms of media, unless the media is either extremely simple or extremely short (even shortness does not necessarily prevent such things). I was in no way suggesting there is a basic initial playthrough, what I was suggesting is that such first viewings do not give anyone but a savant anything close to a complete experience.

            edit: To put it simply, reviewers don’t have several months to obtain all the nuances of anything if they’re working for traditional media (or in the case of the game blogger, maintain relevance). Yes, low experience reviews may not encapsulate the fullness of an artifact, but the nature of reviews requires them often to circumvent fullness to present a clear and accurate view on the game. The presumption that is fallacious is that reviewers actually obtain full views in the short time they are often given, they do not. Rather they obtain enough information to make an educated extrapolation on the rest of whatever they are reviewing.

          • drewski says:

            I’m genuinely surprised that someone exists who thinks video game reviewers actually finish games.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            That’s 4 people in this world who have literally no idea what they are talking about.

            I challenge any one of you to find a games reviewer who:

            1) Has a reader/viewer figure of greater than 100,000 per article or has worked in print media for a published industry magazine.

            2) Will openly admit to not completing the story mode of a game he is reviewing and still has a job/meets requirement 1&4

            3) Will openly admit to writing a review without trying some features of the game (for example not trying the flag collecting on assassins creed) and still has a job/meets requirement 1&4

            4) Describes their articles as reviews

            Guess what. You will not find one single professional or even an amateur who publishes under his real name who meets these requirements because you 4 are wrong. Very very wrong.

            You go on about the time needed, but when you work a full time job, guess what, you get 40 hours a week review time. That is far more than necessary for most games. You will have received your press pack at least a week before your review is due and if the game is likely to need more than 15 hours to get through (not many at all) then it will be the only game you are working on at the time. Mammoth games like Skyrim for example will have several reviewers covering it.

            You, as a professional writer will also have a few articles written in advance, to keep your output stable when you get these large projects.

            Jesus, it’s like teaching primary school kids the ABC of journalism. Though this is probably why people act like such shits towards reviewers, they don’t appreciate the actual level of work or professionalism needed to succeed.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            @rargphlam – So you are saying that you believe that it takes more than one viewing of a film to be able to form a valid critical opinion. Like I said, you are an ass.

            OK, you may miss some of the really poorly executed subtext i.e noticing that Bruce Willis only touches red things in Sixth Sense, which supposedly makes some kind of sense because of his “condition”. But that knowledge is not required to form a valid critical opinion. You will be able to accurately assess whether you liked it or not, what you liked and disliked and why – bearing in mind a review is not a dissertation on the film. It doesn’t exist to lecture the reader on what the film means. It exists to allow a consumer to make an informed choice.

          • rargphlam says:

            No, I’m saying that the situation is far more complex than that, and if you took the time to read what I wrote instead of turning to invective because someone on the internet is ~wrong~, that would become clear to you.

            I was merely trying to demarcate the difference between a ‘full’ experience and a not full. Valid opinions can come from both, a ‘full’ experience allows for the possibility of a more clear perspective, but a lesser experience can and will allow for an argumentative position, I never asserted it did not. Your initial claim that a “proper” review only comes from “exhausting” every possibility is what I was contending with. If anything, you ultimately came to agree with me in your own round about way, so I congratulate you on that.

          • Terraval says:

            @Sheng-Ji

            Congratulations, you’ve forced me to log in, re-find your comment and tell you that you’re an ass and an astounding idiot.

            And this is fucking why: http://www.oldmanmurray.com/longreviews/63.html

        • Snidesworth says:

          Why possible reason could a game have for making you endure a full, 10 hour playthrough on a maddeningly easy difficulty setting before letting you play the “proper” game? This is as bad as being told to stick with FFXIII for the first 20 hours “until it really gets going.”

          • Ringwraith says:

            Having played FFXIII, I can say it’s definitely a slow-burn and this works against it, unless you’re easily distracted by the battles like I am. It’s telling a very specific story, about how each of the diverse characters is dealing with their situation, and that’s about all it does then. That story is all well and good, but if you’re going in expecting exploration or something you’re going to massively disappointed.
            The battle music never getting old doesn’t hurt either.

          • Lagwolf says:

            That is like those that say when it comes to MMOs. “It gets better after level X”. A game should be fun from the minute you start playing it not 10, 20, 30, 40 hours into the bloody thing. A game is after all entertainment and thus needs to entertain you.

            A review can be made at any time as long as the reviewer lets you know how long it has been played. I normally review after 2/3rds of the game it is a long one. Editors want copy and you have to deliver.

          • drewski says:

            Yup. If the game doesn’t get going until you’re 20 hours in, the devs need to go back and fix the first 20 hours.

        • Yargh says:

          I call complete and utter bullshit on that statement Enzo

        • Milky1985 says:

          Accordnig to the internet people were wrong in saying that Final Fantasy 13 got good about 15 hours in (imo i though ti was good from teh start but apparently i am even wronger). And that game got hated on.

          Why is it ok for Diablo 3 to get good 15 hours in but not FF13? Double standards due to location of developers?

          • byteCrunch says:

            Because people are looking for any reason to justify their opinion of the game, and apparently people having a different opinion is somehow wrong.

            So saying that Diablo 3 is nothing but a clicking grind fest is wrong, if you haven’t beaten it on Hell mode or wasted more that 15 hours playing, then somehow your opinion of what is “fun” is invalidated, because “you did not get to the good bit.”

            I am paying for my games, I want them to be fun from the start.

        • Cim says:

          Torchlight 2 might not add anything to the formula, but they have polished the mechanics to a perfect shine. Having played both Diablo 3 and the Torchlight 2 beta there’s no contest which one is more enjoyable to play.

          I’m all for innovation but there’s also something to be said for perfecting what you got.

          • abfinz says:

            I have to disagree with the idea that Torchlight II doesn’t add anything. I’m specifically thinking about pets that can cast spells, and carry your loot to town to sell it. The original added that, and T2 improved upon it by allowing pets to buy potions and scrolls, so you don’t have to break up the fun part of the game to go sell things and replenish your potion and scroll stores. You just send off your pet and continue smashing.

          • PopeJamal says:

            THIS!
            Plus the fact that they aren’t asking me to pay $60 USD. If I’m not mistaken, for $60, I can get three copies of Torchlight 2 and enjoy a nice LAN session.

        • kael13 says:

          Exactly. You wouldn’t review a book after only reading a few chapters. Finishing the story does not equal finishing the game with Diablo.

          I’ll admit the writing is generally shit. However, in the single-player, it’s really worth talking to the companions. And the Jeweller, definitely the Jeweller. They, at least, have a somewhat interesting story. It’s just told in a rather shallow way (right-click -> talk -> choose option) That’s from the perspective of my female wizard, who I ended up really liking. (but again, she’s a bit one/two dimensional)

          • Gnoupi says:

            If you want to go with the book metaphor, then normal is like finishing the book, nightmare is like reading it in darkness, with almost no light, and hell is reading it in darkness, with your hands tied in your back.

            When you finish in normal, you finish the story. It doesn’t renew, they only change the difficulty settings for another playthrough. Of course you can repeat that, and replay many times, that’s the point of the game. But it’s again the same “old” thing then.

          • fenrif says:

            By this logic you have to beat every game on all difficulties with 100% completion before you’re allowed to form an opinion. Or read a book cover to cover multiple times to fully understand the themes and subtexts.

            This isn’t some sandbox where each playthrough can be a drastically new experience, it’s a linear action game that has terrible pacing and asenine design decisions. It’s a step backwards from every game that lets you choose “easy, medium, hard, insane” before you create your character.

          • byteCrunch says:

            @fenrif:

            Well the more times Blizzard can get you to play through, the more times they can show you the RMAH, and the more times it can tempt people to buy better gear to get through the boring grind or some spike in difficulty.

            Diablo 3 is well designed just not for the purpose of fun.

          • Reefpirate says:

            I think there’s a lot of people on here who played Diablo 2 when it first came out for a couple of months and then moved on. That is not the Diablo 2 experience that has been happening for the last 12 years. There’s two different camps, obviously, and there’s no point in getting all snippy with eachother…

            The story and characters in the original games were just as ‘hollow’ as they are in D3. With the right skills, it was just as easy on normal mode too… The real depth and cult following for the game came from the higher difficulties and unlocking loot over repeated runs through the game. That’s what kept the game going for more than a decade.

            Ok, do we understand now?

          • Deltadisco says:

            I wouldn’t review the *plot*.. but if the writing in that book was terrible enough that I stopped reading, I’d sure as hell review that.

        • Reefpirate says:

          The good news, this is only John talking here and not RPS at large. I’m a big John fan, but I am having doubts about his judgement here. I’d be interested in hearing what the whole gang thought about it in the future *hint hint*!

          • PopeJamal says:

            Do you have doubts about the judgement of all the people in your life that disagree with you, or just the “internet people”?

        • Urthman says:

          Chet and Erik of Old Man Murray (who now work at a company that knows something about making fun games) called bullshit on this idea 12 years ago:

          “Either we enjoy ourselves, or we quit… We’d bought into the line of crap delivered by some of the more sanctimonious gaming pundits which states that a “real” reviewer always slogs through the whole thing, because it “might get better.” You know what? Hell with that…Here’s a note to developers regarding what we hope will become an industry-wide policy: if your game has some good parts, try to put them at the fucking beginning…

          With that in mind, here’s our new rule: if a game can’t manage to provide some thrills in the first hour, it gets a bad review. Welcome to the new era of common sense…

          Codename: Eagle, the first game we’re reviewing using our new system, fails. We played two shitty levels. Maybe it gets better later. Who knows. But neither you, nor I, nor even erik should have to find out. When you’re playing it, the important thing is that it’s not better now.”

          “People we trust have told us that Gunman Chronicles gets much better as it goes along. If you’re a fan of games that get better towards the end, check it out!”

          http://www.oldmanmurray.com/longreviews/63.html

        • zaphod42 says:

          I agree, you really need to get past “normal” aka easy difficulty.

          Sadly, I wish they hadn’t completely tied the difficulties to your level, so that somebody could start on nightmare difficulty if they wanted to, if they were an experienced player. But with the game as is, that would require letting you spawn a character at a higher level.

      • pkt-zer0 says:

        Rush past the “too easy” enemies, until you get to a point where that’s no longer the case. Seemed a viable option in the beta for my alt characters. I guess it’s a sort of player-moderated implicit difficulty setting. I’m not sure if you can do a lot more than that when difficulty is tied to item progression and whatnot.

        • mouton says:

          Players can also play with no equipment or screen turned off.

          Difficulty should be properly adjusted by the developer, not rely on players handicapping themselves.

          • pkt-zer0 says:

            I don’t think having a single difficulty curve (like here) is automatically a problem in itself, as long as you can speed along fast enough to the part where it gets interesting for you. I guess you could still argue whether that happens fast enough here. If you insist on killing every single trash mob as soon as you see them, probably not.

          • Ergates_Antius says:

            Look at it this way: Can you name a single *good* reason for not having Easy/Normal/Hard (or whatever you want to call them – makes no difference) options from the start? A single one?

          • jrodman says:

            There’s a good reason, but not appealing to players. It takes more work.

            Now here we have multiple modes that you progress through. Could you offer those same modes from the start in a list? Maybe you could. I don’t really know as I haven’t and won’t play this game.

        • zaphod42 says:

          This is a point some people miss: If you kill everything, if you explore the whole areas, you’re going to get over-leveled for the area you’re in, and its going to get easier and easier. This is how lots of RPGs work, including ARPGs. If you find the game is too easy, try blowing on ahead and skipping a few things. I assure you by the next Act, things will be much, much different.

          • Didero says:

            So the best way to play the game is to skip parts of the game?

          • Ergates_Antius says:

            So, the point most people are missing, is that to get the best of out the game they have to intentionally gimp their characters?

            Good design there…

          • pkt-zer0 says:

            @Didero: If you’re a seasoned gamer? Yeah, you probably do want to rush the early, easy parts that were designed to be beatable by your grandmother. You’ll have plenty of time to fully explore those areas on the latter 3 difficulties (and/or with the other 4 classes), anyway.

      • Blackcompany says:

        The biggest mystery of all, to me, us how Blizzard convinced so many people to Rent a game for $60. Buy it, then only play with lag, while servers are up, until we no longer offer them. Um…no, thanks.

        Waiting for TL2, PoE.

      • nrvsNRG says:

        Basically, if you dont like the idea of playing thru a lacklustre normal (easy) mode first, (which will then open up the game difficulty and 70% more weapons/armour become available) then Diablo 3 is not the game for you.

        However I totally agree about the writing. It really is just awful generic forgettable dross, i cant believe this is all they could come up with in all those years. Also the graphics are literally from 5 years ago.

        Despite this i’m enjoying the game.

      • 153351 says:

        The game starts, but the difficulty, especially for seasoned players, does not start. So your complaints about difficulty in Normal mode are just: complaints about difficulty in Normal mode. Come on now.

        • jrodman says:

          And those complaints… are totally valid. Don’t be obtuse. The game requires you to slog through this stuff, and that’s an actual problem, regardless about where your focus on the game may have ended up.

          • PopeJamal says:

            Exactly. They could have just as easily allowed you to choose a more difficult setting from the beginning if they weren’t (and here’s the key):

            Purposely stretching things out.

            Whether it’s just bad design, their MMO mindset showing, or because they want to maximize exposure to the Auction House, we’ll never know. But what we CAN know for sure is that some people aren’t happy with having to slug through “the boring bits” to get to “the good bits” and they are absolutely allowed to feel that way.

        • drewski says:

          Yes, his complaints about the game are complaints about the game.

          Glad you cleared that up.

    • moarage says:

      That’s imo a mmo mentality applied to a non mmo game(e.g. the real game starts at end-game/level cap) and is really an outdated mentality(even to mmo’s) that doesn’t justify that you need to endure hours of bore-fest first till the game gets fun.

      I’m not saying the game is boring, I’m saying that if someone finds a game boring initially, it’s ridiculous to demand him to play 10 hours first till the game might eventually get fun.

      • Gnoupi says:

        Reminds me of Serious Sam BFE in a way. Quite boring and unpleasant beginning for me, and people telling me that it gets better after you get there, or you get this weapon.

        • Baboonanza says:

          To be fair there is a difference between ‘finish the game and then we’ll let it get interesting’ and just poorly judged first act. Once the first bit is over you still have most of the game left to enjoy at least.

          • Gnoupi says:

            True. Finally it’s the same game, only with different tweaks and balancing.

        • Claidheamh says:

          Well, Serious Sam BFE only did that for about 2 hours, not 10. And it was brilliant after that.

        • PodX140 says:

          I’m STILL having issues getting the motivation to get past the first few levels in BFE. I just got to the sandworms, but even then… It hasn’t clicked like the first 2 games did. And BOY did those games click. They’re in my top 3 games of all time, I managed to find every secret in the first act without any internet help! You have any idea how impossible that actually is? Some of those require werebull hits!

          And yet, I stuck with that, but I’m having issues getting past BFE’s (not so) initial levels. The first boss so far has been incredible, but… I dunno, it’s just hit a stop :(

          I will say though, I fired up survival for a few minutes, and I felt like the first 2 games were condensed into two minutes. I literally had to stop playing for 10 minutes after my first good round for my mind to clear and my hands to stop shaking from the adrenaline. That mode is FUN.

      • Reefpirate says:

        Ok, last comment for me on this thread for a while… But people really need to figure out what game they’re playing here.

        I don’t understand how you can say the difficulty modes in this game are outdated or ‘not good’ somehow… The higher difficulties and ‘end game’ content is what kept Diablo 2 going for 12 years. That was the reason that it is still selling copies to this day. People LOVED that shit, and that’s probably what people will love about this game.

        It seems a lot of people are treating Diablo 3 like it’s a Dragon Age game or something. You want deep characters? A tactical role-playing progression? That’s not what this game is about.

        • moarage says:

          Well, what people should or should not expect from D3 is really subjective imo. I mean I never played D2 and was never really hyped for D3 but I enjoy it atm. Sure is not the best game I ever played but certainly keeps entertained till other big releases.

          But then there are people who waited 11 years for this game, while they loved D2 they are expecting D3 to be D2 AND SOMETHING MORE than that. From what I gathered, that “something more” that blizzard added is unjustified to wait 11 years for.

        • fenrif says:

          People say that D3 is outdated and less good because it has less features and options than D2, the decade old previous game in the series. Things like “selecting your difficulty” which has become kind of an industry standard for games.

          It’s great that you and others enjoyed grinding the same content for 12 years, seriously to each his own. But to say D2′s popularity came from that alone seems short sighted. I doubt the game would’ve been nearly as popular without, say, LAN mode. There are many reasons for it’s longevity beyond the fact that you can endlessly repeat the same content ad infinitum.

        • Didero says:

          The problem isn’t with the different difficulty levels themselves. The issue mister Walker takes with the game is that not all difficulty options are unlocked from the start.

        • drewski says:

          Yes, that’s not what Diablo is about, which is great, because that’s not what John’s criticising.

          “It’s not good enough at being an ARPG that it pulls me back after the shitty onlineness boots me out” is essentially his criticism.

          Hence the hollow criticism. It’s an incredibly shiny veneer of a good ARPG over solid but not great gameplay. It’s wearing bling but there’s no meat.

          Now, you may say you have to play it on a harder difficulty to experience it fully, and that may be true, but you shouldn’t have to play 10-15 hours of a mediocre game (by Diablo’s standards) to get to a good one. At least, not unless you choose to.

    • MuscleHorse says:

      I see the further difficulties as a multi-player aspect. If I’m going to play the game again it’ll be with a new character.

    • psyk says:

      Indeed, normal is a joke. Can you bypass having to touch it by playing online?

      • BloodyLlama says:

        Sadly you cannot. They even put in absurd level restrictions. I beat Nightmare at level 46, and it wouldn’t even let me START Hell until I grinded up to level 50 (My OP monk could total have handled Hell at 46).

        The game has problems to be sure, but Hell really brings out the best of it. i cannot imaging what Inferno will be like.

        • KDR_11k says:

          That’s why I appreciate that Earth Defense Force games let you pick higher difficulties (that require late game gear from the lower difficulty to have a chance at) whenever you want so you can get slaughtered abysmally or win a really difficult fight for great rewards if you attack them early.

    • theleif says:

      I really do not get this. I this was actually true, why is there even lower difficulty options, and why on earth does the game force you to slog through them before the “game truly start”? It seams like a major design failure if true.

      • psyk says:

        Lower difficulty? where.

      • Spinks says:

        Because people who are not uber gaming gods quite enjoy the power trip of normal mode.

        • Snidesworth says:

          Then why not provide standard difficulty options? Let people who want a relaxing cruise of a power trip pick Easy, have Normal there for a moderate challenge and Hard and beyond for people who want something tougher. As it is many people literally have to work for several hours to get to a difficulty level that they can actually enjoy.

          • PodX140 says:

            Exactly this. I enjoy playing my games on their hardest settings, but if I’m quickly playing a flash game or something? Easy all the way and just blitz right through. I can understand why other people might do that for their full games as well.

          • Archipelagos says:

            Agreed. Not providing players a choice of difficulty at the start of a game should be one of those DON’T DO THIS rules to developers, much like un-skippable cut-scenes and DLC only endings.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Am I not right in thinking though, that the higher difficulties are designed for your characters after normal, so they continue at the level they finish on, trying to take a L1 character through would be impossible for even the godliest of gamers.

            Maybe have the modes as presented but an overall difficulty, easy normal and hard which is assigned to your character.

            If you team up with another character with a different difficulty set, it averages them all out or something.

            But anyway, none of this detracts from the point that in the first 2 diablo games, the harder difficulties were bonuses for those who completed the game. The games were balanced around normal and the extra modes were not necessarily well balanced but a nice bonus if you wanted to keep your character and didn’t mind playing through again.

            The normal mode should most definitely be the best balanced,

    • brat-sampson says:

      Then *obviously* you should be able to start at whatever difficulty you choose (or at least a level above normal/easy), if not actually change it mid-game. I thought enforced difficulty progression died out with Guitar Hero…

    • Stevostin says:

      An even more sensible suggestions : just don’t buy and play Diablo III ; instead buy and play games that are just fun from the beginning and until the end. There are plenty, plenty of those – I personally don’t find the time to play them all. Did you ?

      So you see, you don’t have to be bored then to have fun : you can also just have fun. And for a cheaper price, too.

    • Saul says:

      If the first page of a novel isn’t interesting enough, the publisher won’t even bother to keep reading, let alone publish it. Why should games get a free pass to give you hours of crap up-front? The Diablo games have never been to my taste anyway, but I will never in a million years play a game for hours before it gets good.

      • sinister agent says:

        Got ao agree with this. I’ll give a game or book or film a free pass for a chapter or hour (twenty minutes for a film) if I had high hope or was reliably informed it’s good enough. But neither should be front-loaded with crap.

  4. D3xter says:

    I stumbled over these screenshots of how the game would have looked like/been if it was developed and released in 2005 under Blizzard North: http://kotaku.com/5761172/this-is-what-diablo-iii-looked-like-a-long-time-ago/gallery/

    And I ponder what that would have been like with THAT being Diablo III.

    • Eich says:

      It looks awesome, but what’s up with that camera angle? It’s seems to be fixed like in a JRPG. This does not look like a 3d engine so I doubt it was a free moving camera? I think in 2005 this would have been an earthquake. This years Diii is just a weak aftershock…

    • PodX140 says:

      Bleh, I clicked the link before I noticed it was a Kotaku article. I really despise them since the entire spoilers in article titles and the absolute fawning they did over the razer blade (not to mention the reaction to the backlash)

      But it does look very FFish, not sure I’d play that over the current look, even scaling back the current look 5 years or however many.

    • Screwie says:

      The camera angle may be fixed but at least it lets you look into the semi-far distance, which could be cool.

      I really like the decor too.

  5. wyrdyr says:

    I’m so glad they released a Starter Edition to this – I came away with exactly your conclusions and yet I have not had to part with my money to do so.

    I suspect co-op will be a significant improvement over my experience, but can’t imagine even that thrill will last all too long.

  6. Metonymy says:

    Interesting point about single player, my original interest in Diablo 3 was to have a good Blizzard game that did NOT require the enforced grouping of WoW. I tolerated the casual grouping of battlegrounds, disliked the forced grouping of raiding, and despised the aggressively enforced grouping of arena. It all made the game into even more of a job than it was intended to be, and I will never tolerate the sentiment that grouping improves competition. All competitive grouping does is include more opportunities for unpredictable events. Randomness is one of many adversaries of memorable battles between players that are learning and adapting.

    Some people are wired for grouping, I entertain the notion that they are not very smart. But either way, grouping is not a cure-all for anything, and for me specifically, it’s a major turnoff.

  7. groovychainsaw says:

    Interesting – I’ve already posted on the forum about this, but there’s obviously very different takes on Diablo. I’ll agree the online requirement for single player is stupid, and when it impacts the game like it has yours, John, it is obviously TERRIBLE. I haven’t encountered any issues myself, so maybe that improves my opinion of the game, I can’t be sure.

    As for the gameplay itself though, it polishes other ARPG ideas to a shine,and I think you are underrating the changes the skill systems have brought. Unlike yourself I feel freed rather than restricted by the new skills system, able to have many more skills available to me and many more builds for my character to approach different situations with (previously, I would tend to put all my points into one or two major skills, often backed up with passive buffs, to min/max my character). The criticism of the enemies seems fair, I haven’t hit more than 1 or 2 mobs who even need a different approach yet, but I’m hoping this changes as the game moves along (or I play on harder difficulty). I’d like to see more tactical variety to force me to think more about my skills. Although the criticism of the dragonflies seems a bit harsh, by level 10, all my characters have at least one ranged attack that can help with mobs that run away (Maybe the monk has no ranged option?).

    As for the shops not selling the best loot, isn’t this normal for every ARPG? You’re supposed to get loot by playing, and the best loot from the hardest monsters. Plus you get more for playing with others and on harder difficulties, so you’re not going to see much in the early stages of the game playing solo. Whether that’s a balance issue or a deliberate choice, I’m not sure, but its not unexpected. The only unexpected thing is being able to buy a set from shops that is that much better than drops – that certainly hasn’t happened for me (on the other hand, the blacksmith seems uber-powerful for my armour).

    • Terragot says:

      my feeling is that they could have chosen better things to polish; procedural generation on maps, items and monsters would have been really something unique. As it is right now, it’s really, really well polished and looks and feels fantastic, but it’s just terribly drab and not compelling me to play further.

      The detail they’ve put into character management shows promise though. And if Blizzard are anything to go by, this wont be the same game in 12 months time.

      • Gusdor says:

        Torchlight did procedural maps 2 years ago. Unique? Nope.

        • psyk says:

          Your point?

          http://www.diablowiki.net/Randomization

          Diablo released – December 31, 1996

          • byteCrunch says:

            Yes and roguelikes did it 15+ years before that so what is your point?

          • psyk says:

            Seeing as we are in a comment section for an article about diablo I thought I would stop at D1 as it’s the first of the diablo games, also because he is talking about tourchlight a game that was released many many years after diablo.

          • Hoaxfish says:

            I find the whole progression quite weird, D1 had almost everything randomised… D2 took out the randomised quests in favour of 100% fixed quests (and frankly I never understood why they removed them), D3 has a fixed overworld layout though seems to have brought back random “quests” in so far as little side-events. They seem intent on screwing down the randomisation, in favour of something (but apparently not plot)

            D3 “isn’t finished” until you’ve replayed it multiple times over… because of forced-difficulty setting limits (even though completing the game on normal says that you have in fact completed the game).

            Meanwhile indie games are chugging along inventing 100s of different ways to randomise a game and maximise replay for minimal cost.

          • Moraven says:

            The overworld layout is half fixed. Some areas will always have a couple of the same things, to progress quests and what not, but the game is very procedural in providing different World Events and caves. My 2nd time going through the Halls of Agony, spawned the Grand Inquisitor and his relative Lore books. Highlands was a completely different layout other than the start and end.

            I really enjoy the random events. Set ups for a battle vs rares/champion mobs along with a little Lore.

  8. MuscleHorse says:

    I’m soloing, having pretty much only soloed the first and second iterations. In no way am I advocating the always on DRM but I seem to be especially lucky – I’m yet to experience a single issue with it.
    The writing is poor, yes, but then this is Blizzard – were you expecting any more? I’m more infuriated with the return of Deckard Cain and his awful voice acting. Shurely they could have hired someone a little less irritating?
    I get the impression that your enjoyment of this sort of game can come down to which class you happen to be playing. The physical combat types are usually tiresome, maybe give the Demon Hunter a go? He’s a pile of fun, somersaulting, grenade throwing and machine-gun-crossbows as he is.

    • Lycan says:

      This. My enjoyment of the game increased manifold once I started playing as the Demon Hunter (or Huntress rather). I had also started with a monk. Two things I have learned:

      1. If you find a skill combo you like, stick with it until you find something you like better. This may seem trivial, but if you’re coming straight from D2 (like me, at least where aRPGs are concerned) then perhaps you play in a way that emphasises getting higher level skills as soon as possible. Since skill damage in D3 scales with your weapon damage (in a balanced way, i.e.) there is no reason not to stick with a particular skill combo, even if you have been using it from Level 5. For example, no skill so far has made me want to give up Rapid Fire for my demon huntress.

      2. Craft, dammit. The shop vendors sell crap, yes – they did in D2 too (as someone already pointed out). The thing to do in D3 is to craft with whatever spare cash you have. Just like in D2 the thing to do was “gamble” with whatever spare cash you had. And leveling up your artisans gives you access to higher level items – though leveling up artisans tends to get expensive quickly. However, since those higher level items require you to be a higher level too, you can take your time and “save up” cash, as it were.

      But yes, the connection problems. Oh God, the connection issues. I suffered many, many disconnects (at the rate of once every 5-10 mins if playing solo) until I discovered a voodoo solution that worked. Once I was able to settle into the game for more than an hour and become immersed, it really started getting fun. But being disconnected constantly – not fun. Made me think of Torchlight 2 lovingly and be thankful that I’ve pre-ordered it. I recommend everyone does the same – it’s US$20 and will be totally worth your money :P (sorry about the shameless plug)

  9. frightlever says:

    “The only novel enemy attacks I’ve noticed are the waspy dragonfly things, who just fly away from you, meaning if you’re not playing a ranged character they’re just tedious to fight.”

    Monks can charge and root. Been using that a lot on my lvl 12 Monk, particularly on Treasure Goblins. I’m sure barbs have something similar.

    First game since Anarchy Online where I’ve had a serious issue with lag, but kinda getting into it anyway.

  10. Crimsoneer says:

    A little needlessly harsh, but accurate. Then again, I haven’t had any connection issues whatsoever since launch, so that probably colours my view a little.

    It’s pretty much Diablo II, more polished and with a far better online component. I’m pretty damn happy with that :P

    Diablo III singleplayer reminds me of Quake III singleplayer. It’s pretty pointless, and I don’t know why anybody would play it that way, but i t’s so beautifully polished and singleminded it’s still fun.

    • Arglebargle says:

      I’ve seen the stats quoted that 60% of Diablo II players played solo. So is it wise to design a game ignoring that?

      The demo seemed nice but bland to me. However, I am apparantly immune to whatever magick Blizzard casts on other gamers.

      • mckertis says:

        “I’ve seen the stats quoted that 60% of Diablo II players played solo.”

        More like 90%.

        “Diablo III singleplayer reminds me of Quake III singleplayer. It’s pretty pointless, and I don’t know why anybody would play it that way”

        Indeed, Q3 singleplayer was crap, unlike the excellent single of Unreal Tournament. So its all in the execution. With good bots – there is no real need for multiplayer.

    • Stevostin says:

      I can’ti find any motivation to play DIII Multi – ah yes, here’s one, the arena, but that’s it. Diablo II Multi was just Diablo I solo but multi, more player and monster’s health multiplied. And that was it. Basically, and because, despite a lot of non sense I am reading, Diablo I & II were designed 90% for Solo and 10% for Multi (and I bet, played this way, just like way more buyers played Starcraft Solo rather than Multi).

      And here’s a good reason for that : the very core cam choices implied that very easily you’ll just be without any partner in sight. I WoW, you can heal someone by clicking his icon. You certainly couldn’t do that in DII. Can you in DIII ? My feeling is that Diablo just has none to little multi dynamic. You don’t buff people (or only via aura and shouts). You don’t heal them. You don’t shield them, etc. Actually, in DII Necromancer was avoided by other players because he could accenditally kill you by trapping you with walls. That’s how much Diablo II was designed for Multiplayer…

      IMO the real multi feature was trading stuff and comparing willies online. It was also mindless powerleveling. But it had nothing to do with tight group strategy that came with MMO and especially WoW. Which I despise, but still, Diablo never was even close to those team play basic, and IMHO, can’t really be, because of the fixed sky cam. You can’t, alone, decide to know what your partners are doing if they’re running away from you. This is kind of a hard limitation in the gamedesign that makes sure teamplay won’t reach any depth.

      I’ll buy DIII when it’s below the 12€ bar. I guess that means never, but that’s up to Blizzard to decide.

  11. Gnoupi says:

    This article seems to reflect my impressions from the beta. It is for sure very punchy and satisfying in its core mechanic, but the rest is a bit unsavory. My main gripe encountered with the beta (aside from the connection issues, obviously), was with the actual maps and things to do. They went the titan quest way, so each time you go through a place on the surface, it will look exactly the same (besides some micro dungeons placed differently). The only map generation happens in dungeons, and it was very underwhelming. It was less convoluted than Torchlight 1. They use the same idea, building from chunks of maps to avoid the crosswords from D2, but it’s not fully interesting yet. Most of the time, I felt like running through 4 corridors and their corners until finding the door to the next level. That’s unfortunate, because the actual chunks are interesting the first time you pass them. The walls disassembling, the skeletons coming from them… But after the hundredth wall like this, it does get a bit old, admittedly.

    People who like me had issues with that will be glad to see that in Torchlight 2, everything is generated from chunks, and feels coherent in the assembling. You will rarely feel like going through the same way twice, when playing different characters.

    Also about Torchlight 2, the pet. I don’t think I actually came back to town for other reasons than a quest return, or a new objective requiring me to get there, during the beta. The pet just takes my useless things, and brings me back potions if needed. It’s really nice to not have to run through the city to find your seller.

    (Note: For people who want to try Torchlight 2, there will be a bigger beta weekend, starting… well, tomorrow, so you might want to take your chances: http://www.torchlight2game.com/news/2012/05/17/beta-update-upcoming-weekend-stress-test/ )

    • PodX140 says:

      Bring back potions you say? That’s new. But no thanks for me, potions are gold, and gold can be gambled! And gambling leads to… Loss :( BUT! Occasional uniques and great loot! So, if I sell enough potions, that extra gold might be enough to get a unique, thereby making the potions pointless!

      Is what I tell myself. In reality, my digital OCD prevents me from using any healing items. EVER. Case in point: risen 2? never used a single provision or drink, nothing. Also an issue: never sold anything either, worrying that provisions would feed crew or something.

      But, at least it does allow me to absolutely power through games when they don’t anticipate the player being as insane as me. Another example: Dead space 2: managed to beat the game essentially using the grav mod only, sold all my ammo, everything. Managed to get every upgrade.

      • wu wei says:

        Path of Exile replaces potions with equippable flasks which fill as you kill things. Like you, I’d always save and sell potions, but these actually encourages me to use them, as there’s no point in not doing so. Flasks are first order items of equipment, come in all rarities, and can hold enchantments. It’s a neat twist on the idea.

      • Gnoupi says:

        Bring back potions, or scrolls, by the way.

        I see your point with potions, and in general with consumables. In most games I have to force myself to actually use a consumable, because it’s something which is potentially depleted. And even when I use, I try to optimize them.

        Case in point, I played DeathSpank recently. The game throws food at you (regen over time when not fighting) in almost every breakable object. And these items change with time, you drop better ones. But yet, I cannot use the newer ones. I have to finish the low ones before, by fear of wasting the “big ones”. It actually leads to stupid situations in which I actually “live” on a food, for which the successor is already not dropped anymore, because there is a new one already. And that’s stupid because the amount of dropped food, and money to buy more, is ludicrous anyway.

        Now imagine my pain when playing a game from the STALKER series, where items are actually rare.

  12. The Sombrero Kid says:

    Agreed

  13. Terragot says:

    Thank you for having the clear sight to judge this non biasedly John.

    When I play this I keep finding new complaints that just don’t make sense, the most recent: GUI pop ups all over the god damn place. I try reading something or stat comparing when bam some quest shit pops up or audio book or dialogue or, god forbid, I hover my mouse over something and GUI starts raining from the heavens.

    My bro gifted me a free starter edition. “we’ll give it a go and see if I want to buy it.” We said. “we’ll try it together.” We said.

    “HELL BE NO” Said Blizzard. You may not play with the person who gifted you this code.

    There’s just so much obtrusive shit in this game that it feels like it’s there to hide a shallow experience. Tetris inventory is gone, my monk refuses to use any weapons and just out right punches shit (save on animations?). Potion, identify scroll and town portal scroll strategy has been completely removed. and all items look the same!

    I do love the enemy animations, there gorgeous. But I can’t help thinking Blizzard should have made an adventure game out of this with all the damn cutscene, dialogue and quests they forced into it.

    And Is it just the starter edition or has procedural generation disappeared? I’ve played it four times now and it’s been the exact same run, same towns and same enemies.

    • Gnoupi says:

      You can’t play with the person who gave you a guest pass? What do you mean exactly, I’m curious about it.

      About map, only dungeons are generated, the rest is static, besides the location of micro-dungeons.

      • Terragot says:

        It’s locked to other guest past players only. This I can understand, as they don’t want to give away too much of their hard work for free, but I’m sure they could have implemented a friend filter for the person who gifted you. Couldn’t play with a friend so I didn’t get the ‘true’ experience and as a result don’t feel compelled to buy it.

        • Gnoupi says:

          In fact it makes sense, in a way, if you think of it like a MMO, I guess, because of the auction house.

          But simply allowing new players to play with others, but preventing any gear or money exchange would have been a good solution (yes, I’m aware that it would require to prevent people from seeing what others are dropping intentionally, but that doesn’t seem too much of a problem).

        • chubb says:

          So the only way to play with my Wife on a guest pass, is to set up a starter edition with another guest pass, even though I already have a full game account!?

      • Enzo says:

        No, the outdoor areas are also randomly generated. They have the same shape, but stuff that spawns on them is completely random.

    • SketchyGalore says:

      The starter edition stops at the Skeleton King, right? That was a really boneheaded idea on Blizzard’s part. Prior to the skeleton king, the story does nothing particularly interesting, the game is never challenging, the skills don’t show their true intricacy or power, the item drops are limited and uninteresting for the most part, the level design is more bland than anywhere else in the game, and the enemies have the least interesting characteristics.

      And yet, the very second after you beat the skeleton king, the story gets less cliche, the level design gets cooler, you start fleshing out your skill set, and the enemies become MUCH more unique. It seems to be a carried-forward WoW mentality on their part. “Let’s put the least interesting part at the BEGINNING of the game so no one will want to play anything but the end game”. Unfortunately, it’s that dreary beginning that they decided to market as a demo.

  14. BobJustBob says:

    Losing control of your character was fun in Agent USA.

    • Emeraude says:

      Or in Vampire Bloodlines. Frenzy in a crowd while attempting to escape a police raid could be quite satisfying, I find.

  15. postwar says:

    I heart you, John Walker.

  16. MeestaNob says:

    Never mind, answered above.

  17. Enzo says:

    Is RPS seriously saying that Diablo 3 is a mediocre hack and slash game? Ridiculous.

    • saturnine says:

      Shocking isn’t it, these things called opinions. Welcome. The shock you’re experiencing is that of hearing an opinion other than your own, and it should wear off given time if you stick around.

    • John Walker says:

      “It’s a very decent game.”

      • Enzo says:

        Rest of your post definitely doesn’t sound like it’s a “very decent game”. End of the review is very negative. Actually almost the whole post focuses on the elements of Diablo 3 that you didn’t like.

        edit: And like I said earlier – if you don’t like Diablo 3 and you think that it doesn’t add anything new then you’re going to hate Torchlight 2. D3 does almost everything better than T2 (I’m comparing beta versions of both games).

        • Mungrul says:

          So what if it does Enzo? John’s entitled to his opinion, and if that doesn’t sit well with yours, well that’s a shame, but it’s just the way things are.

          • Enzo says:

            It just seems like RPS is senselessly hating on Diablo 3 only because of DRM-Always-online thing – which seriously doesn’t matter to me. Whenever there’s a post on RPS about Diablo 3 there always has to be a snarky comment about the DRM. Seriously, it’s not that important.

          • Jim Rossignol says:

            I couldn’t play the game at all for the first two nights it was up. Still getting lag. Seems pretty significant to me.

          • Gnoupi says:

            Well, apparently whenever they try to play the game, they get unpleasantly reminded of the always-on DRM. That might be the reason why it comes up in most articles.

          • Mungrul says:

            I see no “Senselessly hating”, and that term strikes me as rather needless and passive-aggressive hyperbole in a misguided attempt to discredit John to be honest.

          • Toberoth says:

            Just because it doesn’t matter to you Enzo, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter to others. Try to understand that your experience with the game is only one in a wide spectrum, and if RPS writers are struggling to enjoy the game for whatever reasons, then of course they should warn their readers that they might run into the same problems.

          • Synesthesia says:

            also, seems a bit redundant, but you might want to read this, enzo.

            http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/05/17/opinion-why-the-problem-with-diablo-isnt-diablo/

          • Fincher says:

            I’m with Enzo on this one, RPS will be receiving some very harsh words from Blizzard’s CEOs soon. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AN 8+ REVIEW DAMNIT

        • Milky1985 says:

          I also don’t see the word review in the ARTICLE heading.

          Two different things

      • Nick says:

        phh, like anyone reads the words John.

    • lhzr says:

      Nah, I think the shock comes from reading stuff like this on RPS instead of a random gamer’s blog.
      All the Diablo-is-shallow complaints are true, but they’re equally true for every hacknslash ever.

      The big revelation that the author had thanks to the lag and crappy drm is something that was pretty obvious since Diablo 1 and something that hasn’t changed since then. This is how the genre is.

      As far as I can see, what Enzo is asking is what’s the point of the article and why did the author play D3 if he doesn’t enjoy the genre, which are both valid questions.

      • Gnoupi says:

        The genre has changed, though, in other games than D3. It has evolved a bit.

        • Snakejuice says:

          Give us an example!

          • Gnoupi says:

            Hm, let’s see. Take the pet, for example, which is in Torchlight 2 (and previously Torchlight 1, and Fate).

            It serves as a mule, and also as an assistant which can defend you, and use spells (my feret currently summons zombies or skeletons, for example). But this we had already earlier, in a way (Dungeon siege for the mule, and mercenaries for the rest).

            The main thing about the pet is that you can dump your junk items to him, and send him to sell them to town. You can even give him a shopping list so that he brings back potions, scrolls to you. I like this idea, because it’s simple, but coming from observing the main things you do during a Diablo game:

            1. Kill monsters
            2. Get loot
            3. Check what is good and equip it, keep the rest to sell in town
            4. Go to 1 until inventory is full, then go to 5
            5. Open a town portal, teleport to town
            6. Run to the merchant in the town
            7. Shift click your junk items
            8. Run back to the portal and go to 1.

            1, 2, 3 are what makes the game fun, the rest is usually a tedious loss of time. So the pet is a part of the solution.

            Some games go further, mostly because they don’t have to care about coherence, like Deathspank. In there, you walk with a grinder in your inventory, and can just change your unwanted items to gold.

          • lhzr says:

            Yes, the pet is very nice, but you can’t say D3 didn’t bring anything new, when they changed the whole leveling/skills part (much improved compared to ye olde skill tree, imo).

            Also this doesn’t change the fact that this whole article reads like someone saying I don’t like flight simulators because they’re too complicated, and then goes to download and play the latest flight sim, only to go online and whine about how complicated it is, while also presenting said opinion as some sort of revelation.

        • mouton says:

          The way I see it, Diablo does keep its genre hostage and thus it has hardly evolved at all. Consequently, I don’t find hack n slashes to be much or long-lasting fun.

          There is much bigger contrast with another rehashed game from the nineties, Starcraft 2. It follows the same way Diablo 3 does – polishing an ancient formula. But, it feels much more jarring, as the RTSes in general have progressed far beyond the initial formula.

          • pkt-zer0 says:

            I don’t think any other game has done SC-style RTS better than SC2, actually. Care to give a few examples?

          • Lemming says:

            He’s saying the genre has moved on, and he’s right. Dawn of War 1 was the last standard base-building RTS in the old style, and even that IMO is better than SC2. But rather than list a whole bunch that have bettered the genre since SC’s days I’ll just throw out the big one: Company of Heroes.

          • mouton says:

            @pkt-zer0

            The point is, the RTS genre didn’t try to mindlessly copy SC, as opposed to ARPG sub-genre constantly cloning Diablo. RTS has evolved and branched in different directions. Off the top of my head, an incomplete and barely accurate list:

            Supreme Commander, Total Annihilation (gigantic improvements in UI, micromanagement, zoom)
            Dawn of War, Company of Heroes (control points, cover mechanics, cones of fire, squad-based combat, many more)
            Homeworld (fully three dimentional space RTS)
            Ground Control (no-base RTS)
            Metal Fatigue (different layers of combat – sky, ground, underground – cutting off enemy robot body parts and attaching to your own)
            Battlezone (RTS/simulator merge)
            Stronghold (complex siege mechanics)
            Majesty (indirect unit control)

            And then comes Starcraft 2 and feels like having a shiny landline telephone in the age when everyone else has smartphones.

          • pkt-zer0 says:

            @Lemming: “He’s saying the genre has moved on, and he’s right.”
            I suppose I can see that. But is that a good thing? People have similarly argued that turn-based RPGs have moved on, and became first-persion action games. I think that’s a load of bollocks, personally. Why would “old” mechanics not be worth exploring, if they’re still good?

            @mouton: You listed different games, not better ones, and that was the point. If you were looking for a game that advanced Starcraft’s formula, you didn’t have that many choices.

            “And then comes Starcraft 2 and feels like having a shiny landline telephone in the age when everyone else has smartphones.”
            See, this is the part I don’t get, the “old = bad”, “novelty over quality” thing. Ideas don’t have an expiration date. How do you get to the point where you say that every RTS would be improved by squads, no bases, cover systems, control points, multiple terrain layers, etc.?

  18. Jimbo says:

    So, that Diablo, huh.

    I No Oceaned GamersGate in the face and have been playing Game of Thrones instead. It’s ok – far from the disaster I was expecting. It reminds me a lot of The Witcher 1, except the good bits aren’t quite as good and the bad bits are every bit as bad.

  19. brat-sampson says:

    THE FUTURE (A prediction):
    Gamers/consumers will come to the resounding conclusion that Always On DRM etc etc is absolutely abhorrent and should be excluded from all future titles. Opinion pieces across the net will enforce this.

    Companies/publishers will look purely at the sales figures for D3, which will be astronomical, if they aren’t already, and come to the resounding conclusion that it’s a fantastic idea that should immediately be brought into as many Major Titles as possible.

  20. Raziel_Alex says:

    I’ve had the perfect solution for all this: not playing or giving a damn about this game. Well, I generally don’t care about HnS games, so… Anyway, I can’t wait until all this agitation goes away so we can get on with worthwhile stuff like Dishonored, Hitman and Bioshock.

    • mr.ioes says:

      This game is an unfinished mess and after SC2 the worst video game purchase (in terms of fun for the buck) I did. What a coincidence both are from the same company.

      I should have known better after some official from Blizzard said “we cut the singleplayer to 20 missions only because people said it was too long”.

      Those are the fruits of Activision and Blizzard fusion.

      But let’s celebrate. More people will throw their shiny paper with “$” on it towards Titan Quest 2 uhm… Grim Dawn and Torchlight 2. And potentially Sacred 3!

  21. Bluerps says:

    Aw man. Now you popped my hype bubble. Until now, everything I’ve read was very positive, apart from the connection issues. Unfortunately, you and your colleagues tend to know what you are talking about, so there is probably something to it.

    I still want to play it, of course. But now that feeling of “This is going to be awesome!” is gone, and was replaced by a feeling of “It’s probably fun”.

    Oh well. Maybe the connection problems won’t be that bad over the weekend (yeah, yeah, I know) and bad writing has never been a problem for me, in an ARPG. Maybe it’ll still be awesome.

    • Crimsoneer says:

      This. It’s bland in singleplayer, but still fun. It’s also AWESOME with a friend.

      • sneetch says:

        Erm… my friends and I played in the last beta weekend and we found it rather boring and far too similar to the first two. After a few hours where we were starting and restarting (because of network connection problems and the game resetting but also because we wanted to try out a few characters) we just kinda… stopped and went to play something else. It’s slick it’s very polished and you should love it but somehow it just didn’t grab us, the network issues might have something to do with dulling the enthusiasm but it just felt too familiar.

        One of the lads went back on the Sunday and told us that we’d stopped just before the end of the beta but it didn’t call the others back, we didn’t feel like we were missing out on anything. My point is co-op alone isn’t enough (and I love co-op) but YMMV.

  22. starclaws says:

    No skill path choice. No stat choice. No runes, no charms. Sooo many characters are the same as every other character… only customization you have is dyes.

  23. caddyB says:

    For all it’s shortcomings, it is a good game. And it really starts to pick up at nightmare, when you have to be careful around rares/uniques/champions. It can only get harder ( read:fun ) in hell and inferno.

  24. Saintsavier says:

    ‘constantly taking away your controls, which has been fun in this many games: none.’

    This in so many ways turns into that in one way or another.

  25. Neurotic says:

    Since I really missed out on the Diablos the first time around, I have no history with them, and so no great love. However, having played Torchlight to absolute death, and being a proud Path of Exile owner, and having also pre-ordered my Torchlight II from PWE (granting me Neverwinter Beta access to boot), I can honestly say I don’t give a fuck about Diablo III. Go me.

  26. mr.ioes says:

    Let’s celebrate. More people will throw their shiny paper with “$” on it towards Titan Quest 2 uhm… Grim Dawn and Torchlight 2. And potentially Sacred 3!

    Don’t get me wrong: This game is fun, somewhat. But if I had to choose between Grim Dawn, Torchlight 2 and Diablo 3, Tristram wouldn’t be saved.

  27. Kleppy says:

    God I so wish this game wasn’t a crazy 60 euro moneys. It looks good, and Diablo 2 owned my life for like a year back in 2000, but I was much younger back then and had way more time, and way less games.

    Knowing Blizzard, the game isn’t going to get any cheaper so I probably will get it sooner or later, more because of some weird sense of continuity than an actual desire to give them my money.

    As a side note, you people who are so anti-DRM. As of right now, Diablo 3 remains uncracked. Ask yourself how many people who would have otherwise just downloaded it went ahead and bought it. Way I see it, it’s a multiplayer focused game and the DRM works just fine.

    • Lord of the Fungi says:

      “How many people who would pirate it, did not (yet)” is a pointless metric. It doesn’t mean anything how many times your game has not been pirated, that’s virtual sales. There is hardly a proof that preventing piracy helps actual sales, as the problem is in both in mentality and wealth of the players. When implementing draconian DRM (as in D3) the proper question should be “is the number of people that bought it instead of just pirating it higher than the number of people who would bought it, but did not (because of dislike of DRM or the news about login issues)”. We’ll probably never know the answer to that, unfortunately, as it is in corporate interest to condition people to accept DRM and other crappy ideas.

    • Eich says:

      You do realise that Diablo 2s Multiplayer remains uncracked as well? Ongoing sales are ensured by a fun multiplayer. There is no downside to offline Singleplayer.

    • Eversor says:

      Yes, D3 certainly is uncracked. But that’s only because to crack it, you have to emulate the server software like you would for an MMO. To this day, I don’t know all that many Guild Wars private servers, all because the game was coded in a way that all game mechanics were handled server side and the client only had the assets.

      Sure, you can claim it’s the success of the DRM. Yes, the game still stays tightly locked to all evil pirates. Was it worth the cost of Error 37 popping out first when writing “err” in Google Search? Was it worth fucking over all those people who took days off work in hopes to play the long anticipated game? Is it still worth the myriad of issues people are having? I don’t think so. Like Ubi DRM, all Blizzard has done is punished their own loyal paying customers. Pirates remain with no fucks given.

      • PodX140 says:

        See, unlike consumers, pirates have literally no right to be entitled to anything. They did not pay, therefore, they don’t expect it. So they’re fine either way. But if it does get cracked, well, that’s a nice treat, but they aren’t going to scream at cracking teams for not cracking games or go out and buy a copy.

        So yeah, either way, no fucks given from them.

      • Kleppy says:

        So you had an error message for the first 5 hours. Boo-freakin-hoo. First of all, the internet echo chamber makes it seem like it was impossible to play at all, when I know for a fact that people managed to get in and play just fine. Also, multiplayer launches tend to be rocky, but it comes with the territory. If you were so anti-DRM you shouldn’t have bought the game anyway, let alone run out in the middle of the night to the store to make sure you got in first.

        • Eversor says:

          If you pay 60 funnymoney for a triple A title, you deserve a good service. Forgetting the fact that Diablo has always been a primarily single-player series that never had encountered such launch issues and ignoring all the yadda yadda of always on DRM shenanigans, Blizzard isn’t new kid on the block in this. They run the biggest MMO ever for eight years now, they launched Starcraft 2 not that long ago, there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever to have such a fallout, especially after having a freaking stress test beforehand (which, incidentally, was also a horrible, nigh-unplayable mess).

          Internet very well may be an echo chamber, but anecdotal evidence that claims everything is fine doesn’t outweigh it. For example, I had zero problems with Fallout New Vegas, guess I was lucky, as plenty of people were having major issues. So what, Fallout New Vegas is a flawless gem? No, not really. In such cases, it is rather self-centered and arrogant to ignore legitimate complaints just because they didn’t happen to you.

    • jrodman says:

      If it had been cracked I would have downloaded the cracked version and tried it out, comfortable in the idea that my play can’t be turned off by a stupid corporation being jerks. That might have led to me enjoying it enough to pay for it.

      As it is, I am not going to pay for it.

  28. MordeaniisChaos says:

    Surprise, games get way less interesting after the first time you go through them, ten fold when you just die and lose a bunch of progress and redo it immediately. Kinda sounds like you’re blaming the game bits for something that is universally pretty much the case. I bet if you accidentally skipped back 20 minutes in a movie on OnDemand, the next 20 minutes of you watching the movie would be a lot less enjoyable than the first time you saw that content.
    I’m not claiming that the game is super deep or anything, just that it’s fun as hell and calling it hollow is silly.
    Also, fuck the DRM. I mean cops.

  29. Spinks says:

    The story and the companions genuinely do improve through the game, they’re still not very likeable but there is a bit more to them. And by the time you’re in Act 3 or 4 and [removed a spoiler], the story picks up a lot too. I still like that my barbarian is a chunky looking chick who looks as though she’s really capable of swinging that axe.

    What is harder to handle is that the auction house breaks the crafting/ merchant side of the game. You can go to the gold AH and buy an item which is pretty much perfectly itemised for you and it won’t be any more expensive than the random stuff the merchants are selling in game. (Dunno if you consider the AH to take you out of single player mode, I but it does highlight how pointless the in game stuff is.)

    It’s just odd to think that this will probably be the best selling PC game this year and it’s not that special.

    • Ysellian says:

      “It’s just odd to think that this will probably be the best selling PC game this year and it’s not that special.”

      That’s Blizzard for you. Wings of Liberty is nothing special either and it sold more than much better titles surrounding it. Many people (myself included) are expecting gold from Blizzard because of their track record, but most of the people who worked for Blizzard all those years ago have already gone. If it wasn’t for my disappointment in WoL, I would probably have gotten Diablo 3 as well.

      • mr.ioes says:

        I found the single player pretty impressive. They kept their word when they claimed each mission would be different in its mechanic.
        Then again, it didn’t feel worth the 44 bucks I paid for.

    • Crimsoneer says:

      Spoilers…

    • jrodman says:

      “What is harder to handle is that the auction house breaks the crafting/ merchant side of the game.”

      This kind of thing is why I prefer to play games without being able to even know that anyone else has ever played this game ever before.

      Okay not exactly, but I like to be able to not even think about it during play sessions.

  30. Oryon says:

    I’m playing Torchlight! Yay Torchlight! And Din’s Curse! Wooo!

    • PodX140 says:

      I’ve got to say, is din’s curse worth it? I played a bit of it (with a friends copy cough cough) and although it’s decently fun, it never really seems to properly pick up. I remember being really high level yet still not getting a single amulet or ring (one or the other, despite jewlers).

      And playing as a fire mage is just suicide, with the gas vents and all.

      Has it improved enough for a second look? Because if so, I may just get my own copy this time around if it impresses me further, it wasn’t missing much last time.

  31. woodsey says:

    ‘Oh, and if you’ve not had server issues, others have, and that doesn’t make server issues okay – kind of a crucial one to remember there.’

    Pucker up John, I’m going to kiss you. (Through the internet.)

  32. TheBigBookOfTerror says:

    When do I get to start feeling smug about pre-ordering Torchlight 2 this morning?

    Sorry, what’s that, only morons pre-order?

    Dammit.

  33. Captain Hijinx says:

    Thanks John, always appreciate your insight.

    Will be giving this a miss. Really looking forward to Torchlight 2 though!

  34. Dubbill says:

    Is this the official RPS verdict or is there a WIT yet to come?

  35. sfury says:

    Hallelujah!

  36. Tom Walker says:

    …this many games: none.
    I still kind of miss Digiworld.

  37. pkt-zer0 says:

    The game starts off with low difficulty, so try speedrunning those parts to make it more challenging. I don’t think the enemy variety is that terrible, either, it’s just that the initial parts are so easy that it doesn’t really matter what tactics you use.

    • PodX140 says:

      Call me insane, but I would never pass by XP or gold in an RPG, despite how pointless. I would hate myself and the game for the fodder, but I wouldn’t stop. Unless it’s my fault for selecting an easy difficulty, why bother putting in pointless enemies? Unless we’re talking enemies that I’ve managed to out-level or game the game so badly that they’re stunlocked or whatever, but that also makes me think that I’ve managed to get past the “hump” so to say and there isn’t any more to the game.

      Moral of the story? ALLOW DIFFICULTY OPTIONS FROM LEVEL 0.

  38. SketchyGalore says:

    Man, people just love nitpicking this game to death. I wonder what people would be saying if it wasn’t released by someone as big as Blizzard. I mean, the position of the inventory window? That’s what gets you?

    I really didn’t expect to see RPS on the bandwagon, and this is one of those few times that I’d have to flat-out disagree with them. The game is a blast. It never set out to redefine the aRPG genre as this article seems to suggest it should, but rather brought the feel of the game we all knew and loved into a more modern light. The fixed camera, for example, is absolutely brilliant. Some of the tricks they do with that are stunningly beautiful and I wouldn’t dare change it for any rotating camera. I also don’t see how people keep on calling the skill system a “simplification”. There are 150 active skills in the game, plus the rune changes and passives, equaling over 750 things to choose from, often with drastically different results. The only thing that’s simplified about that is that the player isn’t locked into blind decisions and can succeed at the game without heading to gamefaqs for builds.

    I will admit there are some problems with the balancing, particularly when it comes to the economy of the game, but I’d have a hard time believing that that won’t be ironed out in time. As for the connection issues, yes, that had to be one of the greater fumbles in game-launch history. But we’ve hammered that issue into the ground. That “you have been disconnected” image has popped up on RPS like five times in the past three days. Diablo 3 wasn’t the first game to have problems and dumb DRM decisions, and it most certainly won’t be the last. But it’s like people put so much stock into the quality of this game that they can’t help but tear it to shreds now that it’s shown some flaws.

    We get it, David, Goliath is a jerk. Calm down and have fun.

    • Toberoth says:

      You’re implying that they’re purposefully trying not to have fun with the game, and I really don’t think that’s the case.

      • SketchyGalore says:

        Not quite the point, no. You must admit there’s an unusually large cloud of negativity surrounding this game, though. I feel like people are getting caught up in those frustrations (the frustrations of dealing with the online lunacy, for example) INSTEAD of having fun; not purposefully avoiding it.

        Admittedly, I think the barrage of internet hatred is something that gets under my skin with this one and I’ve been avoiding it so I can focus on the fact that I, myself, am greatly enjoying the game. I think RPS just threw me a curveball declaring something with such depth “hollow”.

        • Toberoth says:

          I can understand why you’re annoyed with the negativity surrounding a game that you’re personally enjoying; no doubt reading about the flaws other people have seen in the game has made you start to see those flaws as well, to an extent. But there are clearly big problems that need to be highlighted for the benefit of people (like me) who aren’t sure whether they want to invest €50 in a game that they may or may not enjoy. My recommendation would be: if you’re having fun with the game on your own terms, then that’s great. If you don’t want your experience to be spoiled by what you perceive as undue negativity, then maybe steer clear of forums, gaming blogs etc for a while.

          • PodX140 says:

            What Tob said. This cloud of negativity is helping people who haven’t purchased the game yet. A) It tells them about what flaws to expect, so as to not get blindsided, and B) It raises enough stink to maybe get patched in the future.

            But you also have to note that this game was HYPED. People are still in that mindset at release, and the best way to remove that and not get people with overly high expectations getting the game is to highlight the negatives. I find in my experience that it levels out the hype and I can make a decision rationally, looking at both the negative and positive, rather than thinking “BLIZZARD D3 GOGOGOGO” The more hype, the more negativity necessary to get people thinking.

            At least, that’s my view, and I’m thankful for it TBH.

    • Mordsung says:

      Just enjoy it man.

      See, most of us are perfectly willing to like music no one else likes, or to like movies that no one else likes, but in the gaming industry many of us feel this internal reason to justify our enjoyment of a game.

      It’s stupid.

      The input goes into our eyes and ears and our brain goes “pleasurable!” and releases the chemical goodness.

      Trying to justify one’s like or dislike of a game is pointless.

      Either the brain releases the good stuff, or it don’t, and anyone judging a game on anything beyond that factor is effectively as bad as a “hipster”.

    • Viserion says:

      I agree, I am no hardcore gamer in the sense that I rarely master games. I do buy a lot of them though. As a fan of D2, D3 is excellent (as was evident from playing the beta extensively), I am having a blast. Neither Titans Quest, nor Torchlight I (man, I hated that one) captured what made D2 so successful. So for me D3 is the first great game of the genre after…yeah,D2.
      On the other hand I remember a lot of reviews back in the day when D2 was released, similar to this one, (criticizing things that later became the norm, like the save system). They never stopped D2 from becoming an extremely successful game with a huge following. Same thing will happen with this one.

    • Lord of the Fungi says:

      You are joking, right? If it wasn’t Blizzard product, the game would be torn to shreds on most sites. The big portals have no balls to really criticize products for big corporations, and the fan response is quite calm, too. If any other corporation except for Blizzard (or Valve) tried to make such a crappy DRM scheme, and the mess it up so much, there would be stakes burning already.

    • flibble says:

      I have to agree. Although the DRM is a huge issue (and RPS is right in highlighting this until something is done), a lot of the flaws highlighted by this article seem like nitpicking. The difficulty issue is fairly annoying, I’ll admit (especially for those that don’t intend to replay nightmare and hell modes), and there should probably be a choice between normal/hard for the first run-through. However, complaining about the skill system seems bizarre. It offers you more choice, simple as. In Diablo II most characters used 3-4 skills, with many skill points being pumped into these to increase their power. DIII gives you more skills in total, combined with the numerous runes that drastically change how these skills are used. Basically most of the complaints in the article sound more like gripes with the genre as a whole, and I feel that the (hideous) DRM is affecting how people are judging the actual gameplay.

    • Lagwolf says:

      So not being able to connect to a game you paid for is nitpicking? Especially one in which you are playing solo not multiplayer?

  39. Sinkytown says:

    I agree that, at least historically, Diablo and World of Warcraft are fundamentally hollow games

    And you’re right that Blizzard have shot themselves in the foot by making the difficulty curve so slight. I imagine anyone with a handle on the mechanics will soon desire more resistance.

    That said, even from the beta it’s apparent that the encounters and mechanics are more tactically interesting than they ever were in Diablo II. There’s meaningful interplay between enemy behaviour, position, and the player’s abilities, which is more than can be said for the first act of Diablo II, which exclusively involved clicking on muppets to make them fall over. I’d say that this greater focus on the moment to moment Killing Of Things (i.e. core gameplay – those who say Diablo is about loot: it isn’t) is what Diablo III brings, and it’s sad that Blizzard have undermined the hard work of their level designers by not absolutely requiring that the player take advantage of a pretty interesting set of mechanics!

  40. Drake Sigar says:

    I remain utterly baffled as to why people love this. Call of Duty I can understand, hell even Twilight I understand, but Diablo 3? It adds nothing, and it appeals to an audience who should be most able to see that.

    • PodX140 says:

      It may not need to add something new. Hell, if someone said that there was a new kings bounty game, as large and well written as The Legend, new items and new skills and new troops, but added nothing new mechanically, I’d STILL buy it in a heartbeat.

      When you like a genre or series, you usually have to be quite blind to manage to get something you actually dislike. It’s the same reason why COD is so popular. Doesn’t matter if it’s the same old stuff, it’s new weapons, new unlocks, and new maps.

      • Drake Sigar says:

        I would buy a new King’s Bounty game too, but the comparison isn’t fair. Over the past ten years Diablo 2 has been copied to the point where it’s influence can be found in every facet of gaming all the way down to browser and Facebook games. We’ve played it in one form or another a hundred times over. Diablo 3 should have been aware of that and brought more to the table.

    • Mordsung says:

      The game’s visuals and sound enter the eyes and ears and the brain reacts by excreting chemicals that create the feeling of enjoyment and pleasure.

      You can’t understand it because your brain doesn’t feel that effect when these same stimuli enter your brain.

      Similarly, you likely enjoy things that do not produce this effect in my brain.

      Trying to pretend there is something more complicated in the factor of “taste” is pointless.

  41. undu says:

    [...] and restarting yet again put me back at the last checkpoint, one dungeon and an entire map ago. And nothing – absolutely nothing – interesting lies between me and where I’ve reached twice before.

    [...] I love how loot bursts out of chests. It’s so rewarding.[...]

    Tasks that are not particularly fun and are pretty repetitive but get rewarded by an occasional goodie? sounds like a Skinner box to me, in fact the illusion that the skinner box aka carrot on a stick is fun is what you’re calling “The Spell”. Watch these videos to know about this kind of game design: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIqQOFXndJ4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c
    Or take a read at this: Behavioral Game Design

    Following the terminology of the article there are many reinforcers of the behaviour wanted (keep playing): the bonus for destroying a lot of scenery at a time (like you said) or the massive killing of enemies and the ridiculous level-ups, that blast off enemies and corpses to make it feel more rewarding.

    And why would Blizzard want you to keep playing? This isn’t WoW, where they are very interested in that because of the monthly subscription. Well, the only think I can thing of is that the player is more likely to use the RMAH.

    Sad thing about this is that they focus a lot in this part of the game and don’t polish other aspects of the game, like the first difficulty being boring because it’s too easy, or the skill menu that makes switching skills or swapping them unnecessarily difficult (and only by selecting an option in the game-play option menu) which is a massive step-down from Diablo 2; or the complete lack of visual hints of you hero’s field of vision (enemies just pop-up), which is a staple in the arpg genre and it’s usually done by lightning; or the lack of groans from enemies that you cannot see, something that adds a lot to the atmosphere of the game of being able to be in danger at any time.

    These things were in Diablo 2, why they got totally mishandled in Diablo 3 and got worse is beyond me, to me Diablo 3 looks more like an evolution of WoW than Diablo 2, including the MMO treatment, which is ridiculous.

  42. aircool says:

    Sadly, it doesn’t matter how good the good bits are if the ‘always online’. Whilst this might seem a strange point of view from someone who plays MMO’s, a DC in an MMO isn’t a hassle. You’re back into the game in seconds with nothing lost. Even in PvP and Raids having someone DC is only of trivial concern.

    However, Diablo III isn’t an MMO. It’s the sort of game I’d play on a laptop when away from home, or not in this case.

  43. CJ says:

    It looks like my decision to wait for Torchlight 2 might be the correct one.

    Local play. Lan play. Mod kit available shortly after launch.

    And half the price (through steam).

    • Malk_Content says:

      They’ve already given out character models so that people can start work on making new looking armour easily, how awesome is that? They even held a competition and got two armour sets officially added to the game, one of them I don’t like but the other gives of sexy Witch Hunter vibes.

  44. Turbobutts says:

    So why did they throw the visual direction of D and D2 out of the window anyway? Is there any benefit to making D3 look like birds eye WoW?

  45. pilouuuu says:

    I’m not playing Diablo Always-On-Line. I’ll be waiting for Torchlight 2 and hopefully it doesn’t have a stupid DRM system.

  46. NormanTimbers says:

    I’m not a fan of the genre, so I mostly sit back and laugh.

    But I think this article misses its point. I don’t see any critique of the aforementioned diablo clones, or torchlight 2 etc., but only that of Diablo 3. Did they add something new? Its certainly an old tired genre. But this critique is clearly singling out one game.

    The issue is that Blizzard is swimming in money and still played it safe, when they easily could have taken huge risks on something new and exciting. But like it or not, Diablo 3, old and busted, is selling like hot cakes.

    Anyways, thanks for buying it guys. /bitterness

    • Malk_Content says:

      The other games aren’t out yet, and haven’t even ha a public beta (or mass press invites) for the RPS team to have a go out. They have no more information than anyone else has access to on those titles. Diablo III however is out in the wild, they are playing it and therefore have opinions on it. When T2 comes out there will be articles about it and they may or may not be as critical. I’m guessing they won’t be as critical because T2 is one third of the price of D3 (not to mention you get T1 with that as well.)

  47. Hoaxfish says:

    Grim Dawn has… camera rotation.

    I’ve never really understood the lack of camera rotation in 3D games, especially top-down, isometric, rts, etc, especially ones where objects can actively obscure your view. Even a basic 4-angle (90 degrees between eachcamera-position) something could be done. A lot of the resources are already designed to be viewed from any angle, the game can exert control for cutscenes, even the basic “grammar” of camera control are widely known, etc.

    Personally, Path of Exile hits the a lot of the right notes.

    Rather than take away development of skill (D3′s skill-system isn’t bad, but it seems like they’re missing enough skills to really give it some meat), it turns skills into lootable gems, and support gems for tweaking said skills.

    An inventory full of potions is replace by a customisable choice of looted flasks with varying magic properties like other equipment, with spamming limited by both equipment slots and that they only refill through killing (D3 kept potions, but added health orbs).

    The passive skill-web, just adds so many paths from where to where, that it feels like you’re investing in something (even with respeccing allowed).

    The currency system that actually has a functional usage by itself (identify, town portal, re-roll item stats, upgrade item stats, etc)

    Possibly the only real let down, for the whole genre, is my complete inability to click the target instead of the ground right next to them, running into melee with something I don’t want to.

    • groovychainsaw says:

      Interestingly (and this will go down like a lead balloon on a PC site) I found torchlight to be much more playable as a ranged character on a joypad. One stick to move, one to lock on/shoot. A ‘soft’ lock on let you sweep your fire across targets whilst running away. It probably made it easier, but definitely overcame the classic misclick problem of an ARPG (albeit by turning it into a twin-stick shooter!) and let you select targets in a smarter manner (than I normally do with a mouse – I’m sure there’s super-human players out there working out percentages and selecting who to click on next based on percentage chance of kills, rather than holding left mouse down until the original target until it is dead).

    • Malk_Content says:

      Torchlight and thus presumably T2 had the ability to force a click to mean attack and not move even if you miss click. Although I think this was needed as the hit-boxes on T1 felt especially fiddly.

    • Hematite says:

      Shift-clicking will force an attack rather than a move in most games – it’s surprisingly rarely known given how annoying it is to play an archer without using it.

      • Hoaxfish says:

        I use shift+click a lot, but it still feels like only a “make do” solution (like Mac’s control+click is more clunky than Window’s single right-click)

        Other game genres seem to have lucked into controls that make it “simple” to perform common actions without overlap. The closest “thing” in another genre would be “move+attack” in RTSes (where you move until attack range, rather than moving through opponents).

        It just seems like there could be a better solution, something like twin-stick, or wasd+mouse… but I’m not really sure.

        • Hematite says:

          I agree actually, it’s pretty clunky for something whole classes are based around. I hope I didn’t sound condescending when I mentioned it.

  48. Sian says:

    “I’m still bewildered as to how they could have taken so long to make a game that adds so little.”

    That’s how I felt with Starcraft 2, but then I remembered that that was what the fans had wanted.

  49. bonjovi says:

    If it works, why change it?

  50. Darko Drako says:

    Diablo III is coming out on the consoles right? I think that there is a real likelihood that the console version will be considered the definitive versions of the game, due to lack of always online DRM bullshit ruining the game.

    • Zanchito says:

      It will come out on consoles, yes, and I think it’ll sell REALLY well. But I don’t see how the console version will have an offline component at all.

  51. Zanchito says:

    Pretty much spot on commentary. I’d play this game if it wasn’t online-only OR the price point was half of what it is now. Also, I feel the itemization has been worsened from D2. Stuff just feels less varied.

    60€ for this is just plain NUTS.

  52. JackDandy says:

    That’s a thing that bothers me too-
    Besides the terrible DRM, cash shop, and all that, there’s a simple underlying truth: The Diablo games simply never were all that much to go bonkers about.

    I mean, when I was a kid I had a good time delving through the dungeons, splattering bad guys and getting stronger loot, but when I tried playing it some time ago again I realized just how shallow the experience is. Just mindless click, click, click…
    This kind of gameplay simply doesn’t hold up to today’s standards, which offer a variety ARPGs which actually require SKILL.

  53. superjag86 says:

    What’s disappointing me most is the lack of excitement I’m feeling,
    Normally when I new game from a franchise or genre I love comes out I can be ignorant of the problems for a while and just enjoy the game.
    That’s what I felt with GTA4 especially, the shooting was woeful and the “realistic driving physics” hah! I still enjoyed the hell out of the game and was excited to see what was next.
    With Diablo 3, it seems the magic has gone, which is really sad.
    It also makes ignoring all the issues so much harder. I mean who’d have thought there would be such a thing as ‘Single-Player Lag’! FFS
    I too am looking forward to Torchlight 2 more now as Torchlight the first definitely gave me that excited feeling :)

    • Hanban says:

      I have to chime in on this one. It’s all very flashy and nice looking. The blows from the Barbarian really connects. But to me it just feels empty. The only conclusion I can come up with is that I perhaps don’t like aRPGs anymore because I can’t quite put my finger on why I haven’t been enjoying it.

      • fooga44 says:

        It’s the combat, the combat sucks. Go play magicka.

        I feel the same way, but I figured out why. I had the same problem with Titan’s quest – the magic wasn’t there. ARPG’s aren’t just about loot (diablo) they are about combat, so if the combat hasn’t upped the excitement factor it falls flat. The real issue with Diablo 3 is they catered to the wow masses and just basically rehashed diablo 2 without understanding why diablo was successful to begin with.

        Magicka clued me in to why I didn’t find titan’s quest interesting – the combat, moves, etc, were not intrinsically very fun. But magicka was a blast because the combat was fun in and of itself. ARPG’s are really ‘action /fighting games’, but few gamers and practically zero game designers have figured this out.

  54. psyk says:

    HAHAHAHAHA First log in today and its a GREAT SUCCESS

    lol at the “its indie so its going to be better crowd” blinders on just keep looking ahead XD

    • Delusibeta says:

      Considering Diablo 3 is getting an (entirely justified) hype backlash right now, I’d say that Torchlight 2 will be a mad success when it’s launched in a few months time.

  55. Heliocentric says:

    The coverage this deserves is no coverage, its a dull trite game that belongs in the past, now more posts on games that are good please!

  56. AMonkey says:

    I was more impressed with the Path of Exile beta, than Diablo 3 beta. Either way, I’m very glad I didn’t succumb to the hype of “OMG NEW BLIZZARD GAME”.

  57. InsideOutBoy says:

    I think many of your comments could be levelled at World of Warcraft too. Some people just don’t “get” WoW and its mass success. It sounds like you don’t get the appeal of Diablo III, which owes as much to WoW as it does to Diablo 2.

    Nobody plays a Blizzard game expecting revolutions in game design. The newness comes in seeing how they take existing gameplay concepts and perfect them in magical ways that other developers end up copying.

    Camera control is unnecessary because the camera is always in the right position (so far).

    The game must have taken so long to produce because everything shows signs of loving care and attention (excluding the online connectivity). Every part of the actual game is polished, user-friendly and satisfying. This is a Rolls Royce of a game. Everything you touch is of the highest quality.

    I do think though the voice acting, story, is cheesy – agreed – but it’s brought into the game so seamlessly that people who hate it can easily ignore it.

    For me, losing map data is the only truly annoying thing of being disconnected and I hope that gets patched. Otherwise I have had to repeat no more than 10 minutes of content. As I hadn’t lost any items or xp; I enjoyed smashing through those 10 minutes again. If repeating content bores you, you won’t like Diablo. This is a game of sweet, tasty and somewhat mindless grinding.

    Yes, the rest of your comments can be levelled at the fact normal mode is compulsory. I don’t have an issue with this because I think if people don’t like the fighting on normal mode, they won’t like it on latter difficulties anyway. If you find the first 30 levels in WoW dull as dishwater, you won’t like the hardcore raiding end-game. I LOVE normal mode. I love being a superhero of destruction and soaking up the new locations, lore and skills in a low-pressure environment.

    Other points: Merchants having crap loot is the norm in RPGs. Try crafting or the auction house. Sometimes you can be stuck with an item for a long time (usually weapons), but a new one feels oh-so rewarding so think this is deliberate. Most characters seem to have a ranged move, or a way to catch up with fleeing enemies.

    I’ve purposefully ignored the DRM issues because I am sick of that debate too, but yes: anything that comes between the player and his game, such as lag, or disconnects is bad and should be eliminated.

  58. NotNyet says:

    Honestly you seem to dislike Diablo 3 for many of the same reasons someone might dislike Diablo 2.

    For me personally, technical issues, lack of pvp, a lackluster (read: mainstreamed) story and a handful of minor grievances aside, this is more or less the Diablo 3 I wanted to see.

    No, it doesn’t push the genre forward all that much, but it does what it does really well. I don’t actually know if I would’ve wanted it to either, fearing that it would no longer be the Diablo I remember.
    (credentials: level 51 on hell in hardcore)

    • psyk says:

      Funny right? dammed if you change to much dammed if you don’t. Still laughing at people who brought the game knowing full well what it was and then coming online to complain that they don’t like it.

  59. DustyGerkin says:

    Well I managed to play on the day of release but since they ‘patched’ it I’ve not been able to play for more than 5 minutes. And when I do there’s horrible lag at times.

    Paying good money for a useless game which for some stupid reason only allows you to play single player online is just not on. I don’t want to use the auction house so why can’t I play off line?

    Wish I’d gone for Torchlight 2 or beating myself in the testicles with a soap on a rope.

  60. Timmeister says:

    Don’t care what you all say, i love the game and will happily play it for many hours.

  61. MadTinkerer says:

    “even to the genre it created?”

    Er, no. No, no, no, no it didn’t. You may want to claim that Diablo was the first successful Action Roguelike, which, incidentally, puts it in the same genre as Minecraft, but Diablo merely popularized a particular style of action RPG gameplay. It was very much not innovative, painfully repetitive, and a huge throwback in a lot of areas. I don’t even own the original Diablo, though I did play a friend’s copy.

    I do like Diablo II, but the first Diablo is horrifically overrated and not even a little bit inventive, thank you.

    (Am i still bitter about what happened to Real PC RPGs in the mid-90s? Yes. Do I still blame Diablo? Less than I did then. Is Diablo, regardless, a far inferior game to Ultima VII, Wizardry Gold, Nethack, Ultima Underworld, etc? ABSOLUTELY.)

    “I just start thinking about Grim Dawn and Torchlight II,”

    Yeah, I’ve completely blown my Kickstarter budget for the next month or so, so I couldn’t back Grim Dawn, but I’m really looking forward to the full version of Grim Dawn as well as TL2 (which I’ve mentioned a bunch of times elsewhere).

  62. Dana says:

    Sooo…9/10 ?

  63. Kval says:

    As far as alternatives go, all I see here is torchlight 2. The lack of love for Path of Exile is just silly. For being an aRPG it is actually quite different and has a lot of very neat ideas.

    • Lemming says:

      Grim Dawn will get my money (and already has) along with Torchlight 2. Path of Exile probaby hasn’t been mentioned much because it has a similar tied-to-online functionality like D3, doesn’t it?

      • Kval says:

        That did not cross my mind, but you are indeed correct. It did have its fair share of very similar problems during some parts of the beta as well.

      • Delusibeta says:

        The difference here is that Path of Exhile is free to play. If the servers don’t work, well who cares? You didn’t spend a penny, so you’ve suffered no real loss (unlike Diablo 3, which is a full fat forty pounds and so you’d expect it to work all the time).

  64. MrPo0py says:

    I’m hooked on the game but I do accept pretty much all of the issues that were raised in this article. I wholeheartedly agree with Walkers criticism of the merchant system in the game. Just pointless. You seem to only ever use merchants to get rid of your non magic items. I’m hoping / expecting improvements when I complete the game take my wizard through it for the second time. But really the merchant should be useful from the outset.

    Also, I’m reluctant to roll another character for that reason. I don’t want to have to put up with the games frustrations a further time just to reach the end-game parts. That’s the same reason I never really got into WoW. Grinding characters, getting bored at level 30 then rolling again, and getting bored again and never really getting a character all the way to end-game.

    The game could easily have done with a further six months of polish and refinement. I’m shocked that this is what Blizzard considers a finished product. I thought they were a ‘it’s done when it’s done’ developer and didn’t rush games out the door with ongoing issues. Apparently not.

  65. Hanban says:

    I had to replay the Storm Halls three times because I kept getting disconnected at the very end. I live in a city touted as being one of the cities of the world with the fastest most stable internet connections so I know it’s not due to my ISP.

    I really just feel like an idiot buying the game. I bought Diablo 1 with allowance I’d saved up and didn’t hesitate to buy Diablo II when it came out. I played them to death singleplayer and only on LAN parties played it multiplayer. I had expected to have an equally nice singeplayer experience as I had had in the previous games, but as of yet I’ve been left out in the cold.

    • psyk says:

      You knew this was going to be the case and yet you still brought the game, well done on that. Lmao nice site link seems appropriate.

  66. Mordsung says:

    I have been luckily *knock on wood* untouched mostly by the connection issues of D3.

    So, coming from that position, I am enjoying D3 A LOT more than I thought I would.

    The game has actually completely shifted my opinion of Blizzard back into the black.

  67. Unaco says:

    So… Score out of 10? Reads like a 3 to me. 3.5 tops.

    I have one slight objection to your words John…

    Of course, people will argue that to solo Diablo is to miss the point. Two responses to that. Firstly, the game does offer a solo game, and is designed to be played that way, so it’s absolutely vital that it be balanced and worthwhile.

    I don’t think it is the case, that if a game mode is included in a game, that it must be balanced and worthwhile and a legitimate aspect of the game to critique. The point is a little moot here admittedly… as this is specifically looking at the single player, and, as you say, soloplay isn’t a mode thrown in with little consideration in D3… but I’m not sure I’d agree with your reasoning (above) behind holding the poor singleplayer up as a black mark against the whole game.

    Would you look down upon multiplayer BF3 because the single player was a reel of quicktime events, jingoism and scripted setpieces? What about ArmA? Does the horrendous singleplayer component drag the exquisite multiplayer down? If an MP shooter game comes with offline bots, who turn out to be pants, does that make the actual game any worse? If a brilliant singleplayer game throws in a multiplayer component as an afterthought (like Deus Ex for example), and its (lack of) balance makes it unplayable, does that reduce the singleplayer component?

    Does a single bad mode of play in a game bring the whole game down? Or is it just one bad mode, alongside other modes which shouldn’t be tarnished with that bad modes… er… badness? Do all modes offered by a game have to be “balanced and worthwhile”, and if they aren’t, how does it, or how should it, affect our judgement of the whole game (with the “good” modes included)?

      • zeroskill says:

        Unaco: Diablo IS a single player game. Millions of people play Diablo because of the single player. The comparison you make is like saying: Let’s judge Team Fortress 2 by its practice mode. People buy Diablo just because of the single player. Its an integral part of the game.

        • Unaco says:

          @Zeroskill:

          I’m not denying that Diablo 3 is a single player game or that the single player aspect is a major part of it (read again what I said, specifically: “The point is a little moot here admittedly… as this is specifically looking at the single player, and, as you say, soloplay isn’t a mode thrown in with little consideration in D3“)

          My comment has almost nothing to do with Diablo 3, so forget about D3 and solo play… I’m trying to get beyond that to the question of should an included gamemode be balanced and worthwhile, and how should a single poorly implemented mode affect our appreciation of a game with other, much more worthwhile modes. The TF2 comparison is good… but understand, I’m not saying that we should judge TF2 on its Practise Mode, I’m asking “should we judge TF2 on its Practise Mode?”

    • Milky1985 says:

      If i recall correctly, people did mark BF3 down for its single player, there were lots of quotes saying “multiplayer good, ignore single player” and scores given appropriately.

      Theres lots of hate out there for tacked on multiplayer modes.

      Diablo 3′s main target market based on the last game is single player (apparently based on the 60% of diablo 2 players never went online), if its boring then its a bad sign.

      I have to say the desert area in act 2 is an awful idea, deserts are boring and featureless. This is not a good location for a game which invovles doing not much else other than clicking, it needs a bit fo variety in the area to make it interesting.

    • Kieron W says:

      So… Score out of 10? Reads like a 3 to me. 3.5 tops.

      You’re not from round these parts, are you?

      • Unaco says:

        Which parts would they be?

        Edit: Doesn’t have to be a numerical score… what about a swatch of colour to indicate your feelings on the game? Green if you like it, yellow for a mediocre experience, and red for a terrible game? Or you could indicate your approval/disapproval of the game by, I dunno, a thumbs up or thumbs down from Optimus Prime?

        BTW, you don’t understand long running gags about RPS’s lack of a numerical/quantifiable review metric, do you?

    • Shooop says:

      I had a good feeling you’d be one to miss the point and instead try to dissect hidden meanings where there aren’t any.

      The point is RPS is making is they think the game itself is pretty good. IF they could play it.

      An actual working single-player mode would have prevented this problem.

      • Unaco says:

        But, surely, here in the discussion section, we can discuss other things, perhaps beyond or in parallel to the points made in the article. I’m not looking for hidden meaning, John has given a stance that’s quite evident, I quote it in my original post. I was hoping that the ideas involved in that could be discussed further… if you don’t want to contribute and advance the discussion, that’s cool.

    • jrodman says:

      It’s a fair point. If a game mode is not a substantial part of the game experience, weighting it significantly when considering the game is perhaps not well advised.

      However, I don’t think that really has a lot to do with what was meant here. This isn’t like a minigame addon.

      • Unaco says:

        I agree… there is no conceivable way you could claim that single/solo play with D3 is anything other than a significant aspect of the whole game. But then, how do we, in other cases, judge what modes are or aren’t a significant enough part of the game? Is it just by mere inclusion? Or by how significant numbers of people play?

  68. Iskariot says:

    It really pleases me to see how Diablo 3′s back is broken by its own crappy über DRM scheme.
    And I am proud to see that RPS is the first gaming magazine to notice it.
    I hope that other game producers read this carefully and learn from this experience.
    I, for one, am incredibly glad I decided not to fall for it and ignore Diablo 3. I was a fan once, but no more.

  69. Hendar23 says:

    Poor John is a games journalist who’s job it is to care about this stuff. The rest of us have the privilege of just being able to walk away from this game.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0q15cWSXP0

  70. RagingLion says:

    Those are some pretty scathing sentiments and it does shine some light on interesting things about games that have been present for a long time but don’t always get talked about. The being put under ‘a spell’ by the game is particularly interesting.

    I always feel better about games where you I can justify the time I’ve put into them afterwards. It’s one of the reasons I could never let myself get into Pokemon almost on a philisophical basis, because the gameplay just seemed so slim and hollow – the same here. I could maybe see that if I was really feeling like progressing within a world into a deeper darker and more difficult environment that that would suck me in and feel of worth though.

  71. BatmanBaggins says:

    I realize that my own personal experience is just a drop of water in a big great sea, but I really don’t mind the always online aspect. When I played Diablo 2 solo, I made an online character and created a private game for myself. That way, I could play alone most of the time but still easily group with my friends if desired. Diablo 3′s much reviled forced-online setup doesn’t really change this at all for me, and I know a lot of other people pretty much played D2 this way as well.

    My main complaint about D3 would really just have to be the extremely lackluster story (yeah yeah, who plays Diablo games for the story, right?) and awful writing (“FOOLISH MORTAL. NOW WILL YOU TASTE THE TRUE POWER OF MY blah blah blah”).

    Normal mode was definitely very easy, and I’m only just now in Act II of Nightmare, but I’ve already noticed that I actually have to be -careful- sometimes, so that’s cool.

    • subedii says:

      I don’t get how even after all this time, Blizzard are still so terrible with storylines and dialogue. Starcraft 2 suffered from the same thing. After 10 freaking years I’d expect better dialogue than… well… that.

      Yes it’s ancillary to some degree, but it doesn’t have to be, and a good story and dialogue can do an absolutely amazing amount to draw you into a game far more than you would have been, even if the gameplay’s rock solid already. And when it’s not, you play on because you have something compelling (that’s the key thing, not compulsive, compelling) that’s driving you forward because you want to see how things turn out next.

      It’s disappointing to me because Blizzard of all companies have all the time and resources they could ever need to do so, it just looks like they simply don’t want to and don’t care.

      • Reefpirate says:

        I disagree. It’s not that I think their writing is brilliant, but it’s very archetypal. Kind of like Joe Campbell or classic mythology type stuff. It’s predictable and cliche, but they seem to embrace that fact.

        Also, I do kind of tire of this yearning for greater narrative depth… What do you want exactly? Some sort of ‘it was all a dream’ twist at the end? The player was actually Diablo the whole time? Leah has an affair with the Scoundrel but is too ashamed to admit it?

        Some more depth on the characters would be nice, but seriously the story has good vs. evil, it has religious and mythological themes… I gotta say I kind of felt for Tyrael, the angel of Justice sacrificing his position amongst the angels for humanity. It was his choice so it was more meaningful than something deterministic like the Christ story.

        People make these demands for game narrative all the time but I’m never quite sure what they’re asking for, so I truly would appreciate an elaboration. Then again, I am the type who would defend the story of Die Hard and who scored very well in my 20th Centruy Literature course by arguing that it’s mostly full of subjectivist garbage/diarhea (spelling?).

        • Calabi says:

          The Japanese can do stories. You can do all kinds of things if you have real seeming characters with real seeming emotions, instead of just copy pasted achetypal generic fantasy.

          • Reefpirate says:

            Leah had a father. Her father was brutally murdered. Leah was very upset and crying. She was sad. That seemed ‘real’ to me. It featured a ‘real’ emotion. I think you need to go a little deeper than that.

        • subedii says:

          Oh it’s predictable and cliche alright. Except that they don’t embrace that and treat it as cheese for the sake of it, or play it up for effect and come out the other side, the authors believe it’s good writing. Which is where the whole thing falls down.

          Take an example: Rayner’s big speech to motivate the troops near the end. Trite, plain, cliche, certainly, but also just plain bad.

          The odd thing is, that in some ways I felt SC1 had better writing. Compare that speech with Mengsk’s speech from the end of the Terran campaign. For some reason, there they managed to nail a fair amount of epic scope they were aiming for, whilst in the latter, what should have been Rayner’s “crowning moment of awesome” was just a damp squib.

          Honestly, there’s a whole raft of things I could write about SC2′s dialogue and story, but that would entail me playing through it again just to remember all the bits and pieces. And I’m just not keen on doing that all over again.

  72. Synesthesia says:

    Great story. Im glad you are making the dangers of these design philosophy well known. I specially enjoyed the why the problem with diablo isnt diablo article, that was EXACTLY what needed to be targeted and shouted at. Its agressive, a danger, and an abuse for customers.

    On the other hand, with all this negativity, i feel like reading some more of the beautiful dayz… i have dropped every single other game i was playing (including sim city 4 and lone survivor) just to be able to squeeze a few more hours in.

    What servers do you rps crowds usually roam in?

  73. fish99 says:

    I agree with every word John says. Something I’ve always said about Diablo games and clones, they’re only fun as co-op games, there just isn’t enough there to make them worth playing single player, the gameplay is too repetitive. That applies to Diablo 2, Titan Quest, even Borderlands, I couldn’t get more than an hour into any of them single player (but finished them all co-op).

    Btw you can add to the list of bizarre frustrations – having separate loot drops but a shared fog of war on the map (wtf Blizz?). Or there’s the times the lore dialogues get cut off because the other player talks to an NPCs.

    • mwoody says:

      If the other player has seen an area but you haven’t, it’s in a lighter shade of gray, so you know enemies are cleared but loot for you hasn’t been. The fog of war is actually very well handled.

  74. kael13 says:

    Well.. I’ve been having a lot of fun, in a largely unfettered experience.

    Gameplay wise, I think it’s probably the most fun I’ve had in a game… Since uhm.. Since… I don’t remember being this absorbed by a game’s combat. It’s just that fun to play. In the later acts, when I hit a wall, as a Wizard, against a boss or pack of mobs, I’d portal back to town, switch out some skills, swap some stuff over come back and feel like I’m playing an entirely different character. It’s amazing.

    As for the battle.net service.. I’ve died to lag, twice, during peak hours at 250ms or so. And that sucked. Also, there’s the poor writing of the main plot and characters, and how dialogue is cut off or spoken over when picking up a lore book. Fixable? I would hope so.

    So I completed the game last night and joined my friend who was soloing Nightmare close to the end of Act 1 and I had a blast. I died a lot but quickly caught up after scrounging off some loot.

    People are saying Torchlight 2 will be better? I say wait and see. And don’t be a hipster and hate something because it’s popular.

  75. theoriginaled says:

    *Plays 1.5 acts of a 4 act game with 4 difficulties*

    “BLEH THIS IS TOO EASY AND IT ALL LOOKS THE SAME”

    come on RPS I thought you were better than this.

    • Malk_Content says:

      If the difficulty was optional I would say you had a point. As it isn’t I think it is perfectly acceptable to judge a game on content your are forced to play in order to get to what you want. It would be like someone forcing me to read Harry Potter before Lord of the Rings and expecting me to not only do that, but also be happy about it and say how awesome an experience it is. As it is he is playing through the game how you have to play it and he isn’t enjoying it, what more needs to be said from an opinion piece?

      • pkt-zer0 says:

        “As it is he is playing through the game how you have to play it”

        There’s only a couple of quest-related baddies per Act that you have to kill, you can skip the rest. I’ve found that does speed up progress quite a bit as well as making things more challenging. I don’t think your options here are as limited as people seem to think.

    • fuggles says:

      Did you somehow miss the part where they can’t progress owing to server fail?

    • liceham says:

      I wanted to start the game on Hard difficulty (of course, I then discovered it was called Nightmare for some reason), but that isn’t an option.

      Wait, why isn’t that an option?

    • limbeckd says:

      To me, this article shouts, “I AM STILL IN ACT 2″. The difficulty definitely ramps up as the game goes on (even in normal difficulty), and enemies with new attack patterns are introduced pretty regularly. I don’t want to spoil all of the later enemies that change things up, but there are plenty. The variety of enemy types and the interesting ways they are combined is what has impressed me most about the game. Playing as a barbarian, there are a lot of enemies that have been really tough for me.

      I encountered a group of nightmare enchanted archers in Act 3, and tried my typical combo of leap in, ground stomp (runed to suck in enemies from further away), rend, but they would fear me before I could even get off a ground stomp, so instead, I would leap in, then get feared and run away. Leap in, get feared and run away again. Leap in, get feared and run away yet again before I can even get in a hit. I got them eventually, but the game definitely told me, “No. You can’t do the same thing you’re used to here.”

      I’ve also had to mess around a fair amount with the skill system, and while I feel really good about 4 of my skills, I still haven’t totally figured out what would be best for the other two, so I end up doing a lot of experimenting on those two slots depending on what’s giving me trouble at the time. Annoying ranged enemies? I tried Ancient Spear. Trouble killing Diablo? I added more single target damage.

      I never played D2 online. It always seemed riddled with dupes and bots, and that really turned me off. Playing single player D2, however, meant that I would never find the best loot (who ever actually found a Zod?). I really like the always on aspect because now even if I want to play alone, I can still access a multiplayer-based economy without having to worry that the items are illegitimate. I also haven’t had any connection or lag issues, so that certainly is a factor.

  76. Gothnak says:

    as i walk around this office, i see 12 people playing Diablo 3, and they are all playing it single player… I however have too much work, so will be getting it in a few months when the stability should be a bit better, although everyone i know won’t be playing, so i’ll be playing it single player too…

  77. S Jay says:

    I am probably risking my life saying this, but I played about 1 hour of Diablo when it was released, tossed it aside and played something else. Never touched or got excited with any Diablo after that.

  78. Freud says:

    It was obvious from the start RPS was going to go activist on us when it came to this game. Each to their own.

  79. daphne says:

    ” I just start thinking about Grim Dawn and Torchlight II, and how much I can’t wait to see what they add to the genre.”

    I will not speak for Grim Dawn, but from what I’ve seen, suggesting Torchlight II will add anything to the genre (seeing as you’ve discarded Diablo III’s innovations in the skill system so readily) will seem disingenous. Just saying.

  80. NeuralNet says:

    Good article, it’s nice to see some real analysis of the game rather than ramblings from others that it’s great simply based on the fact that it must be because it’s a Blizzard title.

  81. Maldomel says:

    Sad, but that is probably what is bound to happen when you focus your game on multi player, while still offering a single player mode that becomes poorly done and useless. and that is broken due to DRM.

  82. MFToast says:

    Meh, I never really enjoyed the multiplayer side of previous titles, so this is right out. I don’t care about building some uber strong PVP character, I just want to play the damn game, simply. I can’t tolerate even the remote possibility of getting lag problems in a single player game. Ridiculous.

  83. daphne says:

    Also — how does “always-on” have anything to do with the game being hollow? I’m sorry, but it seems to me that this article is fueled by ideology more than an effort to criticize. A righteous ideology that I do get behind, but nevertheless hampering the critical qualities of this article.

    Nitpicking on merchants also seems rather nob. My monk on normal (my first character yet) is using two artisan-crafted fist weapons at the moment, and also chanced on a rare weapon sold by a merchant once. It is exactly this kind of incidental use that players are intended to and probably will get out of these NPC agents. Why do they need to be any more?

    I much prefer Eurogamer’s two-sided take, to be honest. At least there’s some sense of fairness to that. Of course, this is John Walker’s opinion, and he’s entitled to it.

    • Morlock says:

      “Also — how does “always-on” have anything to do with the game being hollow?”

      He explains that. in the text.

      “These failings, the DRM-based brokenness of the game, breaks the spell. While you’re able to just endlessly progress, endlessly improve, endlessly move forward, the illusion is cast around you and there’s enormous fun to be had. But in repeatedly forcing you to pointlessly repeat swathes of the game, it reveals just how little there really is.”

      • daphne says:

        I did read the article beforehand, and that does not explain anything.

        What he refers to as an “illusion being cast around you” is very much in the game. It’s not hollow, it’s got real substance to it. You are able to constantly progress, improve, and customize your character. The ARPG fundamentals of this game, as well as its own iterations on ARPG systems are rock-solid. A disconnection does not take away from this (never mind the hyperbole involved in “forcing you to replay swathes of the game”), no matter the understandable frustration involved in being suddenly kicked out of a single-player game session.

        Rather, it seems that the author is attempting to forcibly associate this failing with a perceived mechanical shortcoming. That shortcoming (whether it exists or not, and I obviously do not think it does), however, is nothing that can be revealed by the always-on nature of the game. Whether the game is “always-online” is irrelevant towards revealing the game as hollow. That is what I’m trying to say.

  84. Calculon says:

    I completely agree with the author. I find D3 boring, repetitive, non-challenging…its just a click fest, which really gets dull fast.

    I think the hook is supposed to be getting phat l00ts and being ub3r powerful, which is not entertaining when that’s the meat of the game.

    Great, so I can destroy everything in my path without even thinking about. That’s fun for all of about 15 minutes, tops.

    I played last night for the first time without dropping a connection, however when it was starting to get late, I thought to myself “Ok…time to go to bed soon, maybe in a half hour, I better find a check point” and then groaned to myself that I “had to find a checkpoint”. I couldnt find one for almost an hour.

    Eventually I just gave up and logged out of the game, knowing I would have to repeat that entire area, which is quite large. Normally this might present an opportunity for some fun play to replay an area – but quite frankly, its a chore.

    I think they should have had at launch the ability to select between Normal Mode and Nightmare mode right out of the box. Normal mode is such a snooze fest, but even if they had done that, Im not sure it would have fixed the myriad of issues, for instance, even at level 11, my Monk is so bloody powerful that I dont even use 50% of the skills he has available to him. There is no point. Just *left click*, *left click*, *left click*, *left click*…ooooh surrounded for a moment…*right click*, *right click*, *left click*…there all monsters dead, and not even a scratch,and I still have 40+ health potions left.

    Part of me wonders if they polished and polished and polished to the point where there wasnt any substance left. There wasnt a reason to even play anymore, because they had taken out all of the things that motivated the player to move forward and enjoy the game.

    Honestly, total waste of $60.

    I just hope Grim Dawn is better – I chipped in for that to get the Alpha and Beta access….

  85. EisenKreutzer says:

    I don’t agree at all, actually. It’s like I played a totally different game than John Walker did. I find the difficulties satisfying, the monsters varied and interesting and the combat challenging enough to keep me wanting more. I haven’t experienced any lag issues mirroring what is described in this article, and I’m in the middle of Act three, having soloed most of the content. I think the Skill + Rune system adds enough depth to be engaging while still being simple enough that it doesn’t take a degree in math to master, something which is very important to me. In short, I just don’t agree.

    • Emeraude says:

      I find the difficulties satisfying

      The question would be *what* difficulty ? I’ve seen a friend go through a level without so much as looking at the screen more than a couple of times, while we were having a conversation.

      I’d say this hints at a problem design-wise.

  86. Twoflower says:

    I don’t see why Blizzard couldn’t have allowed two different types of characters — unsecured and purely offline (or allow online but only against other unsecured characters), and persistently online secured characters. (Games like PSO might’ve benefited from that too, although in theory as a closed platform it shouldn’t have needed it.)

    That would satisfy all comers. Can’t keep a solid connection? Well, you can at least play the game, even if you can’t RMT. Having no connection problems, but at the same time you want to run mods or run a hacked character for some personal lulz? Unsecured offline is what you’ll want. Keen on the RMT house and completely unhacked multiplayer? Secured it is!

    But alas, they made the design decision to only allow secured characters. The D3 client is essentially a “dumb client” and all maps and items and AI and such would be streamed, cloud computing style, even when playing by yourself. And that means they voluntarily put a bottleneck up, which a lot of people are running headfirst into, preventing them from playing their purchased game. That is a decision they CAN be faulted for.

  87. Freud says:

    It is precious to hear Walker complain about merchants not having good enough loot to sell, when thanks to it being an online game there is an auction house that has millions of items on it. But I guess since those people who put it there were online-only, that gear is not interesting. Better to insist the vendors should have great stuff.

  88. Hug_dealer says:

    John summed up all my fears. I was kinda worried i would miss a good game but it seems i only missed a meh game. The people saying you have to beat the game before it gets tough, you guys arfe idiots. Thats what difficulty levels are for. So i can play it from the start as a challenge. I dont care if thats how d2 did it. D2 did it wrong.

    Why isnt d3 a browser based game? The graphics, always on gameplay with mobs and levels streamed.

  89. Jamesworkshop says:

    “if you’ve not had server issues, others have, and that doesn’t make server issues okay – kind of a crucial one to remember there.”

    Just because you have had server errors doesn’t mean you can tell someone who hasn’t that they must have- also a crucial one to remember there.

    • Ysellian says:

      I think what John means is that you cannot rub off servers problems in your assessment of the game, because someone you could potentially be recommending the game to could have loads of issues.

    • Emeraude says:

      The thing is, there is no transitivity between the two propositions here:

      People who have no problem can’t say to people who suffer from it that there is none.

      People who suffer from a problem can’t say to those who do not suffer from it that there is none.

    • Shooop says:

      That works both ways.

      Would you be comfortable recommending something that may not work to your friends if they can’t return it or get a refund?

  90. mwoody says:

    Seriously, RPS, quit it. We get that you hate the DRM; yeah, it sucks. But trying so hard to nitpick a fantastic game to death in some sort of moral crusade to make it fail is just childish.

    I’ve been a fan of RPS for years, and will continue to do so, but sometimes how you guys interact with big-budget releases makes me a bit sick to my stomach.

    • Calculon says:

      I think there are a number of people that dont think its such a fantastic game, DRM “Always Online” or not, myself included.

      It seems that a number of developers continue to dumb games down into mere scripted predictible events that have little challenge, or emotional response involved in them.

      There was a time that gaming involved thinking, involved being challenged and having a interesting complex experience to play with. Now the majority of games I encounter are similar to watching TV or a movie. I already have TV and movies. I prefer good games to both of them because it engages my brain, and emotions. D3 does none of these things, and the DRM has little to do with that.

      I always wanted gaming to become more mainstream – but now I regret that because quite frankly it has largely ruined what I enjoy bout gaming.

    • alundra says:

      Again, who is “We”, speak for yourself please.

      Mr. Walker’s article is spot on, thanks to the DRM monstrosity of this thing, he’s realized the game is mediocre at best.

  91. pazmacats says:

    Played Diablo 2 a decade ago and got hooked. Played Sacred, Tochlight, Titan Story, etc. and hated them all. Bought Diablo 3 and I love it. Maybe you guys complaining about Diablo 3 not doing something new have played too many bad clones?!

  92. Porpentine says:

    Fantastic review. Glad someone got it right about this bloated, sacred cow.

  93. Frostiken says:

    If Diablo III had a different name and was released by a different developer, but was fundamentally the same game, you people would be ripping it apart.

    Blizzard is a spent, wasted developer. The talent left long ago, now they’re just another franchise-grinding appendage of Activision. Take off the fanboy goggles and admit it.

    Being an apologist for them won’t help them make better games, and given their track record it isn’t ever likely to change, especially not if you keep queuing up to spend $60 on buggy, incomplete, shallow dumbed-down games clogged with DRM obviously made by developers who don’t really care about making great games, it just encourages them more.

  94. desolateshroud says:

    This article is spot on. Staying away from the DRM complaints – which I agree with 100%, – my biggest problem with Diablo 3, admitting that it is polished nearly to perfection, is that it feels very shallow.

    I really dislike not having control over your character’s stats and not being forced to make hard choices about their skills.

    Regarding the story I am just getting into act 2 and it can be summarized thusly: being told by strangers to go places and kill things for no apparent reason. Yes its diablo, but a little exposition would be nice.

    They mentioned this on the pc gamer podcast yesterday but I cannot stand the muddiness of the graphics. I barely got to the first town before searching for a solution. Here is that solution: http://darkd3.com/ – I couldnt play without it.

  95. Blackcompany says:

    $60 for lag in a single player game that’s only around until servers go dark. Wow. No thanks.

    Waiting for TL2, PoE.

  96. dawnmane says:

    I must say that I find the frustrations about the game in this article completely out of proportion. Yes, there are server issues and yes, they should be fixed, but I’m sure they will be! The game hasn’t been out for a week yet! And I love the way Blizzard has intentionally left out rotatable cameras and other conveniences in order to facilitate their artistic vision for the game. By raging about the always-online stuff and the lack of innovation at the same time, the author ends up sounding like a cross-breed between an old bitter traditionalist and an entitlement-generation kid. This is the game they chose to make. Like it or dislike it, don’t get so upset about.

    • Delusibeta says:

      The elephant in the room is what other companies will do. I wouldn’t be too surprised if the success of Diablo 3 will lead to EA and Ubisoft doubling-down on their always-online DRM. Add in the probability of Activision migrating to Battle.net and you’ll have a pretty bleak PC gaming outlook if your internet is spotty or (more likely) the companies in question decided to shut down the game shortly after the sequel is released.

      • dawnmane says:

        the thing about companies shutting games down is in fact the only thing about this trend that really worries me, so thanks for adding that point of view.

      • Brun says:

        This. However, their experience with trying to emulate Blizzard may end similarly to their earlier attempts to grab a portion of WoW’s market share – we’ll have to put up with five or six years of bad games like that but ultimately those companies will realize they aren’t up to the task. I’m not saying that’s acceptable, but the bright side is that the damage may not be permanent.

    • JackDandy says:

      Here we go, this idiotic “entitlement” argument.

      People who pay money for games SHOULD feel entitled to get great experiences, instead of being manhandled by draconic, nonsense DRM.

      If someone gets a shit product after paying good money for it, he has every right to complain.

      • subedii says:

        I felt Tycho from Penny Arcade had a particularly good response to that angle:

        http://penny-arcade.com/2012/05/16

        Reading around, it’s clear that one needs to phrase their dissatisfaction in these matters in a very specific way. This is one of the stranger new Universals, by which I mean things All Right-Thinking People Believe; things like China Miéville Is An Enjoyable Read. Before you can say that you’re unhappy about something you bought not working, you have to make the parenthetical case that you’re above the whole fray, and it can work or not work, it’s all so droll; you can’t imply that any of it matters because that would mean you weren’t concerned with matters of global import.

        I should take care not attend the same potlucks as these people. The kind of family I have would eat them; I think that they would actually cook them and eat them, because these people have not done enough to distinguish themselves from food.

        We need to think for a second about the extent to which this supposedly carefree fucking dialectic enables these precise abuses. No, actually; it is not okay that the definitive Game Developer can’t make their shit work. Is it as bad as the Foreclosure Crisis? I don’t know, probably not; but nobody is talking about that. There isn’t a list of things that we have to worry about in order. We can decide on a case by case basis whether or not something is bullshit, and then we can feel some way about it, and we don’t need to wait for a transmission from central command to know if we’ve paid in enough psychic penance to enjoy something.

      • dawnmane says:

        No one has a clue if this will be a “shitty product” yet! No company, however gigantic, could be prepared for all possible outcomes of a scenario in which millions of people log on to an online game with such a large randomized component. The entitlement thing comes from people being so damned impatient about stuff like this. Of course, if the issues persist, we as consumers are perfectly entitled to complain (even though the game doesn’t come with any kind of warranty in that direction, so legally, we’re not entitled to them changing the game to fit our wishes, because we bought the game, and the info about the game having DRM and that stuff was clearly out there for anyone to see). But I think most of them will be fixed in a week or two. Or, at the very least, why not give them the damn benefit of a doubt? Why are people so angry about this?! It’s just a game that didn’t turn out to be the game people hoped it would be, and that’s not a good thing of course, but Blizzard have been very vocal about the changes they have made to the original formula, so it’s not like it should surprise anyone. Instead of being so angry, people who feel disappointed about the game should just go play Path of Exile or Torchlight II, or, even better, go back to playing Diablo II, since that seems to be the only thing they’ll settle for anyway. I’m going to go enjoy Diablo III. And disconnect sometimes and be annoyed about it. But I think I’ll be fine, and so will everyone else. Let’s see about the bugs in a month.

        • JackDandy says:

          “No company, however gigantic, could be prepared for all possible outcomes of a scenario in which millions of people log on to an online game with such a large randomized component. ”

          Oh, but that’s the biggest point- They could, by simply including an “offline-only character” option.
          The only reason they haven’t done so was so everyone would have access to the cash shop, whose main function is to gain more ravenue for Blizzard\Activision.

          Well, it was a dumb choice on their end, and every costumer has a full right to complain about it.

      • copernicus_phoenix says:

        “Entitlement” is the stupidest argument ever advanced. Mostly, because it’s not an argument, it’s the world’s shortest rant against consumers having their own minds and asserting their desires. “Entitlement” is the message of every slack-jawed moron who just carries on drinking (and paying for) the Kool Aid without ever standing up for themselves.

        “Entitlement” is the battle-cry of the pathetic.

        • dawnmane says:

          The “entitlement” thing is not about consumer habits! It’s totally okay to voice your complaints about a product! That’s not what I am saying. It’s this intense emotional reaction to this stuff such a short time after launch by people who are probably going to be playing the game for years to come anyway (and have been online for years AND need to play offline in the middle of a forest once a year). NOONE was the least bit entitled to a Diablo III game they could play offline. I DO think the connectivity issues suck, and something should be done about it, but that’s a simple question of sending them as many bug reports as you can, and, regrettably, wait around for them to fix it. I’m just saying that there is so much more negative feedback than positive feedback to almost anything that comes out in the gaming community, even though we are some of the most priviliged creatures in the history of civilization, with all this spare time (you have to have spare time to rant in forums and comment sections) and all these highly advanced games to play. NO, we shouldn’t just accept anything, but the gaming community is becoming increasingly spoiled and and unappreciative, is what I’m saying.

  97. Kiril says:

    I almost missed the Grim Dawn kickstarter. Thanks to this article, I managed to get in. Holy crap, does that game look awesome. Sadly no Linux support for me, but I will live with Wine.

  98. boats says:

    I can’t help but feel the headline is baiting for controversy much like the “MW4 isn’t a game” article did. I also realised I need to get out of the insane bubble that is games journalism. Enjoy the hits.

    • subedii says:

      I would say it was “headline baiting” if the article itself was at odds with (or even just less definitive in its statements than) the headline. Or if he hadn’t gone into a fair amount of depth explaining what he means and why.

      It’s not headline baiting. You could accuse the article of populist bandwagon jumping if you really desire, since that would be on the nature of the opinion itself. But that’s a separate issue.

    • Freud says:

      I think John Walker sees himself as a champion of gamers rights (DRM, different release dates for different regions) and this article reflects that. It’s possible the DRM thing so completely overshadows everything about the game for him that he can’t enjoy it, but it is very tendentious journalism.

  99. Ratchet says:

    I’m glad someone has put into words what was beginning to form on the edge of my brain (saves me a headache). It *is* an incredibly hollow game.

  100. MythArcana says:

    This game is New Blizzard’s pinnacle of failure. It’s so perfect and elegant and stylish that it misses the mark (and the point) in nearly every way and comes off as incredibly sterile to me. Care to spend $200 for a CE version? Why not knock a zero off that price and spend that on Torchlight 2…you can even play it in the woods on notebooks if you dare. I ran out and bought the D2 CE when it came out, but I don’t remember paying $200 on the black market; more like $70 at CompUSA right off the shelf. What is happening with the D3 CE is shameful, and the Starter Edition invite system is even more ludicrous. They give the game FREE to their beloved WoW subscribers, yet completely hide the Starter Edition from the public…unless you are sent an invite from another user. What is this, a yacht club now? C’mon, Blizzard.

    I believe the huge difference between D2 and D3 respectively are functionality versus marketability. It would appear that they spent the majority of time working on the auction houses and copy protection schemes while the core game in question just lingers in mediocrity and barely competes with its’ Big Brother Diablo 2.

    Even though I did not purchase D3 (but did the beta thing), I feel a huge amount of disappointment with this title and it’s not due to any one thing, but a legion of issues that I don’t feel comfortable with. The Old Blizzard is what I love, not this new stubborn behemoth that simply doesn’t listen to reason. I voted with my wallet this time and I truly wish the rest of you did the same.

    • Brun says:

      I’d argue that among the big publishers Blizzard has a pretty good track record of listening to its fans. Diablo 3 appears to be a black mark on that record, but their communication on other games (WoW in particular) really stands out when compared to other companies like BioWare. For all of their other faults, I definitely noticed a huge change in Blizzard’s PR/Communication stance right around the time Wrath came out – before that, they had CMs on their forums being openly hostile and telling hybrid classes that they were second-class citizens. Afterward they had developers posting repeatedly and asking for feedback.

      • Emeraude says:

        I’d argue that among the big publishers Blizzard has a pretty good track record of listening to its fans

        Except when they don’t. See SC2 LAN removal for example.

        I wouldn’t even start talking WoW on this matter because of the giant MESS of intertwined communities that forms the body of players. I’ll give them that though: I don’t think they did an awful work of it.

    • Shooop says:

      The worst thing is it’s not a failure at all. It’s been nothing but a resounding success in all the ways that matter (financially).

      I’m starting to wonder if modern gamers are just masochists. They hear the bad news and complain, other people explain why it’s even worse news than it seems at first, they still buy the game, and then complain more about everything they already knew.

      It’s little wonder the industry treats its customers like idiots. They are.

      • 153351 says:

        It was the most “preordered game of all time,” according to Amazon. I wouldn’t call gamers idiots because they trusted Blizzard to make the game they’ve waited 12 years to make. You sound like you haven’t played the game yet, so where is your butthurt coming from?

        • Shooop says:

          Unless you’d been living in a cave somewhere on a far-away island with next to no internet contact, it’s incredibly unlikely if you were interested in Diablo 3 that you didn’t hear about Blizzard’s DRM plans.

          Everything related to Diablo 3 made headlines on gaming websites and magazines. There was absolutely no surprise about what they were doing. There were daily discussions over how the almost hilariously terrible DRM/item-selling system wouldn’t work the way Blizzard described: like one could only expect it to in an otherworldly utopia.

          These discussion went on every day, describing in detail why it was a stupid idea that would cripple the game, no matter how good the game itself turned out. But fast forward to release day and almost every one of those same people can now be seen complaining about that exact same system failing just like some of them even predicted.

          That my friend can only be a form of massive stupidity and/or masochism. There’s no excuse for Blizzard to do it to them, but nearly all those dissatisfied customers saw the disaster waiting to happen. And jumped right on board anyway.

          My personal issue with these events because I didn’t buy the game is that it’s set a precedent for the entire industry. I may not play Diablo 3 but I do plan on playing other games that will appear in the future. But because of Diablo 3 every game publisher knows there is one more hellish type of DRM they can cram into their games and the majority of customers will happily just go with it, stopping only to complain on the forums for a week or so and then shut up while they rush to buy the next DRM’d product.

          But it seems I am just wasting words on another fallacy-hurling “HOW DARE SOMEONE NOT LOVE THIS GAME AS I DO THEY MUST BE TROLLS!” moron. Go figure.

        • copernicus_phoenix says:

          More homophobia – classy.

      • Reefpirate says:

        And then there’s people like me… Who has loved almost every hour out of 20 I’ve played of this game so far, and can’t wait to get home for the weekend and really dig in. It’s a great game.

        • Shooop says:

          And then there’s people like me… Who either have inexplicably and exceedingly rare good luck to always have my internet connection and Blizzard’s servers working perfectly or am absolutely lying through my teeth about the problems and frustrations I experience.

          Fixed it for you. You’re welcome.

          • wulfstein says:

            Exceedingly rare good luck to always have my internet connection? Huh? I don’t remember the last time my internet crapped out on me. Do most people live under a rock? It’s 2012, how do you not have stable internet connection? And the servers a lot more stable now. I’ve played the game for 15 hours and have had no errors at all. Probably because I didn’t play it right on release like everyone else.

          • Shooop says:

            *Sigh* The “Well I have something so why don’t the rest of you!” projection argument again. Remove your head from your pompous “EVERYBODY SHOULD BE RICH” ass and then post again please.

    • Moraven says:

      So you are mad that the Collector’s Edition is double the price on the aftermarket? At least it is limited unlike some other Collector’s Edition. I have 3 coming Monday that I ordered in October during BlizzCon.
      I did this after getting screwed over from TigerDirect(First and Only time shopping from there) ordering halfway to release of Wrath. All it shows is its popularity and what fans what. People pay extra for the goodies, not to throw more money into the game.

  101. Satheus says:

    This story was a bore. Just tedious whining about things in the game. Well I knew there would be tedious whining about thing in the game but somethings are just stupid. Server issues, they told us before release that it will be server issues. It still isn’t okay that they are there but if you didn’t wanna play it with server issues just wait a month or so to play the game. By then it probably will not have it.
    I find the skills really interesting, the fact that there is runes is making them more fun. That you can use such “few” skills are just not seeing the game as it is, that’s seeing the game as you would want it to be.
    That you didn’t take the time to look into the options to see if you could customize the game into how you want to play it, is not the games fault.
    The fact that all weapons sold from merchants early in first act is just how it is. Of course they will be better you haven’t even started looting good stuff from monsters.

    Now I haven’t played it solo so I shouldn’t say all is the opposite of want you think. And it is not the opposite what you think. You think what you think and if you don’t like some stuff about the game then fine.
    I only wrote this to express my thoughts about this article.

    • Shooop says:

      Does it hurt to be so stupid as to miss every point RPS makes about this game when they complain about something in it? Does it? I really hope it does.

      • 153351 says:

        Does it make you feel better to troll the dissenters when you haven’t played the game? Is this what you’re doing instead of actually playing the game? Because it’s adorable. Please, don’t stop.

        • Shooop says:

          Oh hey look, another projection fallacy! How adorable.

          • 153351 says:

            So…you haven’t played the game yet. Right? Have you played the game?

            I’m sorry your only comeback is that I’m projecting. My comeback is: you haven’t played the game yet, so shut the hell up.

            Where I come from, calling people stupid morons is weak. And trolling. Try again.

          • Shooop says:

            Awwww, how cute. It thinks it can just render other people’s opinions about completely different subjects totally invalid based on its own made-up criteria!

            And now it smells like kipper in here. Someone get an air freshener.

  102. Moraven says:

    One of the enjoyable aspects I like is how each creature dies differently depending on what ability kills them. Nothing like goatmen heads and body go flying after bola shot explosions. Or they might keel over from frost ray as a frozen heap. Or agony of flames. Or arrow lopping off piece of them.

  103. deadly.by.design says:

    333 Comments.

    Half way there, guys!

  104. Hug_dealer says:

    Here are the facts.

    1 these threads are not here for us only shower praise on a game

    2 the fact that other people dislike a game and criticize it should have no effect on your enjoyment of the game

  105. Khatzen says:

    A problem I have came across which is only there due to the Always-Online single player is the following:

    http://eu.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/4077728154?page=1

    This issue has caused me to lose 5 hours of gameplay/a level15 Witch Doctor.

    By default the EU Client with an EU License key has automatically selected the Server region as “The Americas” which it never prompts upon login and you can only change by running the Launcher >> clicking Play >> on the main screen before you login click “Options >> Account >> Server Region” which is a rather hidden but very important option.

    I only realised due to my Battle.net friends list behaving weirdly/missing friends – after searching for Battle.net friends issues I came across someone suggesting changing your Server region which lead me to search for the same issue I have- in case they could transfer my character to the EU region; to which a BLUE in that very thread says they cannot do.

  106. Maliko says:

    The only abysmal writing I see comes from these RPS articles.

    • zeroskill says:

      The butthurt is strong in this comment section.

      • 153351 says:

        We’re trying to match or exceed the butthurt in this article. I think it’s working.

      • shizamon says:

        Good job showing your immaturity with that term. Most people around here don’t subscribe to homophobia. You can try to defend that term, but it is used as a slight against gays at many times.

        Go back to XBL please.

        • CalleX says:

          You are to politically correct for your own good. People have the right to express whatever they want. You seem like the opressor here.

          • drewski says:

            And other people have the right to call them out on it.

          • copernicus_phoenix says:

            “You seem like the opressor here.”

            Moron.

            “Opressor” (sic) has an actual meaning – people are being killed in Syria right now for fighting oppression, people are being actually oppressed right now in China, living in fear for their lives and the lives of their loved ones if they speak out.

            Calling out homophobes (an ugly, bullying and sadistic group) is not oppression. And you, sitting behind your computer, are not standing up for the oppressed. Get. A. Grip.

        • zeroskill says:

          @shizamon: Let me take a wild guess here, you are American are you. Dear lord.

  107. alundra says:

    That first pic is priceless, looks like a game from the SEGA genesis/megadrive era.

  108. Foosnark says:

    Is the UK version of the game completely different or something?

    I’m having a great time with it. I want to get up in the morning and play it and blow off work and forget to eat meals and stagger up to bed 16 hours later, and find it unfortunate that I’m a responsible adult.

    I have had exactly two incidents of getting kicked offline while I was playing — and one of those was my ISP. I’ve had one time where I wanted to play, servers were down, so I played something else instead.

    I’ve encountered no major bugs and almost no weirdness from lag.

    Yes, it’s still kind of stupid that a single-player game relies on an internet connection. You’ve made that point, and I don’t think many people disagree with it.

    While it sticks to some of the old-school stuff that Diablo 2 did without picking up some of the little quality-of-life improvements that other ARPGs have done since, it’s still fairly smooth to play. And it did actually pick up quite a few things: Rapid regeneration of mana/spirit/hate/etc. Identify and Town Portal as abilities that don’t require inventory items. Dye. Customization on the fly instead of needing to create an entirely new character and level them up to try something new. Achievements (amusing at least). Many more waypoints than Diablo 2. Classes not tied to gender.

    Storytelling in Diablo 3 is much better — both in terms of content and medium — than in Diablo 2. I was really pleased at Lachdanan’s story for instance; it worked very well with the serial format. Nothing ever gets in the way of clicking and killing and looting, either.

    My wish list for Diablo 3 is pretty small:

    – Wider gold-scooping radius. Or, much like Hellgate or Dungeon Siege, press a key to scoop gold toward you and/or run around automatically picking it up and/or send your follower around to scoop gold.
    – Single-player without a connection (and this isn’t even a high priority since the servers have stabilized a *lot* since the launch and it hasn’t even been a week yet).
    – That’s about it.
    – Oh, and having a week or so off of work to play.

  109. Zyrxil says:

    This is really an awful article, John. You’re channeling all of your rage over the online DRM and inexcusably shitty launch into incoherent rants about the gameplay. I’ve played the Titan Quests, FATE, Torchlight, Path of Exile, etc., and nothing can compare with Diablo, even if you factor in the budget prices. I’ve played them all and am certain I will not be interested in any of their ideas until it’s the 7th or so year between Diablos again.

    Titan Quest- Nice Graphics. Lots of customization ending up with 90% of combinations playing exactly the same. No randomized maps.

    FATE & Torchlight: FATE is essentially Torchlight 0. Classes interesting. Enemy variety bad. Loot bad. Bases all innovation on the pet (fishing for pet food and using pet to sell).

    Path of Exile: Graphics hugely D2 nostalgic. Skill system using socketed gems ultimately too restrictive. 95% of the time you are using exactly 1 skill. Giant skill tree of passives is extremely uninteresting and ultimately serves as the best example of why Blizzard was right to ditch them.

    You can blame Blizz for not revolutionizing dungeon crawlers all you want, but ultimately there’s not a ton to be done, and the changes made for D3 as well as the solid -feel- of the combat makes it a game the competitors can’t touch.

    • Hug_dealer says:

      plenty of game have better combat than D3. one happens to be DS3. Yes alot of games arent as good, but alot are better.

      You are simply a Diablo fanboy.

      • Zyrxil says:

        That’s a laughable assertion. My total play time on Diablo 1 & 2 combined is probably 60 hours. Blizz is simply good at scratching the hack/slash/loot itch better than anyone else. FATE/TQ/Torchlight get tiresome at an exponentially faster rate than Diablo. They only are even memorable because they popped up during the huge gap between Diablos.

        • HarrietTubgirl says:

          Torchlight is designed by a much smaller team than Blizzard had to create this 10 year old abortion. Not to mention Torchlight has original Diablo dev’s on the team and it shows.

          • Zyrxil says:

            Yeah, that’s totally not an emotionally charged reply devoid of any logic. I did say even taking into account the smaller team size and budget, Titan Quest/Torchlight and the rest can’t compare. That means graphics, voice acting, and animation don’t count. Even then Diablo is simply more fun. Gripe about wanting more change in 10 years all you want, its competitors somehow are still playing catchup.

          • Lowbrow says:

            Your argument seems to be that his/her opinions of gameplay are emotion and yours are somehow logical. The fact that you found Diablo more fun does not make it objectively better, or vice versa. This discussion will go better if everyone realizes that differing opinions do not make people evil, dumb, or fanatics, and that some people dislike things you like. Someone not liking what you like doesn’t make it worse.

    • CalleX says:

      I agree that this is a bad article. IMOR most of John Walkers articles are. He is somehow very prone to get personal. I think RPS should replace him.

  110. 153351 says:

    Please get past Normal mode and review the difficulty again. You sound ridiculous.

    • Reefpirate says:

      Just beyond Act 2 would nice too… I know it’s not a review, and I’m interested in further opinions from RPS. I love them even when I don’t agree with them. Pretty cool, huh?

    • Malk_Content says:

      Why? The game isn’t amazing for him out the box (note he does find it fun) and why should he, or anyone, have to play through something to easy for them in order to access a more appropriate difficulty. This is what difficulty levels are for and forcing people to play on normal first means people are allowed to judge how the game plays on normal difficulty. People level the same argument with most mmos “oh it gets good at the end.” Well why shouldn’t it be good at the start?

    • Shooop says:

      You wouldn’t get the point if it were fired out of a cannon at you would you?

      Please continue throwing out your insipid little fallacies, they only confirm my prejudices that the dissenters of this article are mentally challenged angry little people.

      • Brun says:

        Internet Comments Rule #1: Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.

        • Shooop says:

          Given that the article’s point is very clearly, “This is a fine game. If only I could play it.” and people are still missing it, yes. Yes they are idiots.

          • Brun says:

            Actually, the point is very much “This game is decent at best, on top of all of the connectivity issues.” The comment was relevant, since one of the issues that kept the game at the “decent” level was the difficulty curve.

          • Shooop says:

            Alright so not a “fine game” but a “good” one. At least that’s what this line suggests to me:

            And yet, all these gripes, all these issues, I’d likely have just clicked past were the game not so woefully and deliberately broken.

            It’s because of the DRM the game’s flaws are put under a microscope.

    • copernicus_phoenix says:

      Why should he? That’s like saying that you shouldn’t mind being wrongly imprisoned for a crime you didn’t commit, because you can get a juicy book deal when you’re freed on appeal ten years later.

  111. Mabans says:

    I find it interesting that everyone is up in ARMS about the DRM but no one has really address the issues that this always connected has benefited Hardcore players. I see alot of comments of people saying their single player experience is lost or robbed and I’m going to call you out and say you are liars and never had any intention of buying the game or much less know enough about the game to really have an informed opinion. See D1 had the system where no need to log in but play Single player then carry that guy over to play online. Borderlands does this, for PC however you have a serious issue with people coming in with Modded weapons, characters, etc.. D2 came out and you had the option to play by your lonesome or play multiplayer, issue with that is you have all the best items are found online. So you have to create a whole NEW characters JUST to play online, sound familiar right? This almost of negates the whole real need for single player option if you ultimately get into it hardcore. I wasn’t even into Diablo and just played online because there were many more benefits to playing online than not. Most of their user base aren’t playing just single player, willfully anyway. you aren’t even considering how Blizzard has pretty much REMOVED the bot spam aspect of people selling items by legitimizing it. there

    The Diablo experience has ALWAYS BEEN THIS SHALLOW! There are other possibilities of having to be connected all the time but I guess it’s easier to just shut down all rational thinking and default to “it’s DRM!”. It’s like arguing with Christians where anything unexplainable defaults to “God”. So annoying and intellectually backwards. Do some fucking research and see how DRM is a bi-product.

    You f—ers haven’t even noticed the subtle DLC put in the game.. *facepalm* Enjoy momentary sense of superiority.

    • Emeraude says:

      I find it interesting that everyone is up in ARMS about the DRM but no one has really address the issues that this always connected has benefited Hardcore players.

      I have twice reiterated in past D33 threads how I do not understand how one can think so, personally.

      Won’t bother people again, but I just don’t see how this can be someone’s opinion.

  112. Uthred says:

    While I agree in general (and holy shit having to re-do maps due to Blizzards servers going tits up is annoying) I think John’s wrong about the skills – or at least I feel quite differently about them. At first I did feel that they were rather restrictive, but once youve unlocked all the various types of skills and a few runes it begins to get interesting. I did find it hard to initially shake the “Skills unlocked later must be better” mentality and view later unlocks as added options as opposed to automatic upgrades. Once I grasped that I started to enjoy fiddling with skills, runes and passives in order to customise it to my playstyle, or to synergise with gear, etc.

  113. rockman29 says:

    I agree with the fundamentals behind this article. As the summary on the main page said, Diablo III is just not good enough to warrant these sort of issues. I am having fun playing Diablo, but it’s not as amazing as it should be after 12 years. The money invested into Diablo III seems wasted after 12 years and we are receiving this product. Again, it is a great and fun game, but after 12 years and all these play requirements, there is a lack of depth, novel material, and still not enough explanation for the Auction House debacle causing the online requirements other than the fact it benefits Blizzard to no end.

    After 12 years we have fundamentally the same game, and no mods. I mean… that’s not something to get very excited about. I’ll just play it because I like Diablo, and I like ARPGs. I do feel bad that in buying this game I am promoting this behaviour by companies though… it’s disappointing to say the least. I hope in the future eventually we will be moving away from these problems for consumers.

  114. Hug_dealer says:

    i have literally played hundreds of games that offered higher difficulty levels from the start of the game. I didnt have to put training wheels on to start if i didnt want to.

  115. Doughboy says:

    I’m dating myself but years ago PC Gamer reviewed (I believe) Lords of Magic and gave it a low score. Not a big deal, but a couple of months later they said they received a new version of the game from the publisher and they felt they deserved a second, updated review. PC Gamer said, that in a nutshell the low score review stands. While the update helped the game, it should have been that way from the release. I earned a lot of respect for PC Gamer that day.

    They got it right, you want to release a game that is buggy, doesn’t work from day one and isn’t fun, it’s not the reviewers fault for telling the truth. Yesteryear I would have bought this game without a thought. I’m glad to know about the issues and until they release a version without the online requirement, and I could care less that it’s Blizzard. Since that’s never happening I guess I won’t be buying this game.

  116. Joof says:

    Am I the only one having a lot of fun with this game? Apparently, based on the comments. =/

    • Freud says:

      It’s a fantastic game. It gets even better at Nightmare and Hell when the game starts challenging you. It’s a much harder game than most games in the genre and certainly harder than D2 ever was. Sometimes you end up with five minute long fights against rare monsters or groups of champions, where you have to be very careful about how you fight them and slowly pick one of them to kill first while trying to avoid being killed by the others.

    • BluElement says:

      Nah, I’m having a ton of fun. I can’t wait to get home from work so I can keep playing it. It’s just that the majority of people enjoying the game are playing it and everyone that is not playing it has nothing better to do but troll places like joystiq and rps so they can tell us that we’re wrong and not actually having fun.

      Granted, there are plenty of complaints for the game which a few people bring up. But for the most part, it’s just a whole lot of trolls that have infested the gaming blog in the last couple of days.

  117. MonolithicTentacledAbomination says:

    Diablo III is the worst loot-centered clickfest I’ve ever played.

    Except for all the others.

  118. BluElement says:

    I’d have to say this is a horribly unprofessional review done by someone who seems to have no idea what he’s talking about. I like D3, but I’m completely open to valid complaints, and there are a few in this review. But points like him exiting the game to check if he could up the difficulty basically proves he did absolutely no research on one of the most hyped games of the year, which would seem pretty important for a video game reviewer to do…

    And then there’s no variety in how enemies attack? I guess if you ignore the numerous champions that all have special attacks such as “walling” or “jailing” or “vortex”, there are giant trees that create poisonous plants, charging bull-like creatures, summoners, shapeshifters, etc. How is this no variety exactly? Probably something a good reviewer would have elaborated in as well.

    And then in the last paragraph, he states that he could overlook all of his complaints if the game wasn’t so broken. So aside from everything else mentioned in the review, there’s some major reason overshadowing all of that that makes the game broken, but writer doesn’t think it’s important to elaborate? Again, something a good reviewer would probably do.

    I guess the main problem is lack of elaboration. For the most part, the review says, “This is bad, this is bad, and this is bad”. But why is it bad? And obviously reviews are all about opinion, but this review reads like it was written by a jaded gamer who already hated the game before it was even released. Just horribly unprofessional and a worthless read if you want a good review of the game.

    And I mean good review, not a praising review. Like I said earlier, I’m completely open to valid complaints.

    • HarrietTubgirl says:

      Sorry but John could write a better game review than you ever could. He actually has experience doing so, it isn’t just reviewing a bad game for views like some sites. It’s actually an honest, true opinion that needs to be said.

      And with that being said, it’s an opinion. If you don’t like it move on, your paragraphs won’t do anything.

      • BluElement says:

        If you’re not going to read my “paragraphs”, then don’t respond to them. And you’ve never seen me review a game, so you have absolutely no idea how poorly or how well I might write a game review. Also, the “you can’t do any better” is a pathetic argument.

        Regardless, I never said I could write a better review. That doesn’t mean this one is any good. And again, if you even read what I wrote, I state that I understand it’s an opinion. Everyone has them. It doesn’t mean everyone can write a review.

        The fact still remains that he eludes to some gamebreaking feature that overshadows all of his other complaints, but then fails to even hint at what that complaint might be. That has nothing to do with his opinion. That’s just incredibly poor writing.

        And I don’t care about his experience. Experience doesn’t make a bad review any better. And it’s not an “honest, true opinion that needs to be said”. It’s an opinion that he’s entitled to have, but it was poorly executed into a review for the public to read.

        And if you’re insinuating that I shouldn’t have written anything because my “paragraphs won’t do anything”, then you probably should have never replied to me. Because your comment will do just as much as mine.

        Apparently your view that everyone is entitled to their opinions doesn’t apply to me, though, since it would’ve have been better for me to just “move on”.

        • HarrietTubgirl says:

          Your opinion is worthy, just when you try to span it into multiple paragraphs it loses any meaning in a comment section full of angry. Angry that someone talked bad about their new favorite game. I’m just here for the rollercoaster of emotions that Diablo players provide. If a game I like is reviewed badly, you won’t see me there complaining or berating the writer. You continually berate him for bad writing yet don’t prove you are any better. You are obviously just overly annoyed that he had something bad to say about this lackluster game. But please, continue the entertainment.

          • BluElement says:

            Wow, a troll admitting that he/she’s a troll… Thanks for giving me the heads up so that I can take anything you say with a grain of salt. Also, you admit to this like you’re proud… That’s rather pathetic.

            I don’t have to prove that I’m a better writer. I never said I was better.

            And I don’t care that he has complaints about the game. A lot of complaints are warranted with the “always-on” DRM, the launch day failure, and gamebreaking bugs such as the templar/shield bug. I never said anything about how I disagree with his complaints and I never attacked him for his opinion.

            I’m seriously doubting your ability to read, honestly. Especially since a couple paragraphs is apparently too much for you. God forbid you ever crack open a book and get overwhelmed.

            You completely ignore the points I bring up, and instead go for the “Don’t disagree with John, waaaaah” reply. I didn’t know the reviewers name and I don’t know if I’ve ever read another one of his reviews. All I know is that this one is poorly written and unprofessional. It has nothing to do with his opinions.

            I guess that your responses are explained by the fact that you admitted to being a pointless troll though, so I guess I’m done responding to you.

          • HarrietTubgirl says:

            You are so worked up you can’t even see clearly. It’s really amusing, as are most the comments trying to dismantle his horrible review. If you didn’t care so much why do you keep responding? I’ll keep checking back, this amazing discussion is too good.

          • Shooop says:

            Two posts, not a single insult, and you try to play the “Well you’re a troll!” card?

            Wow. Someone’s really grasping at straws.

        • Toberoth says:

          It’s not a review.

        • Lowbrow says:

          By your own criteria, you fail at research. Your review would probably be very knee-jerk, and in no way concise. This isn’t a review. You clearly don’t read the site. Go back to reddit.

    • Bhazor says:

      “When he exited the game” he lost an hours progress.

      What part of the research you claim he didn’t do justifies that gigantic “fuck you”?

      The broken part refers to the always on DRM that renders the game unplayable.

    • Eric_CC says:

      These are all great points – especially about attack variety. This is some of the poorest content I’ve encountered on RPS

    • shizamon says:

      This is not a review genius

      • BluElement says:

        He’s writing an article about his experience with the game and going over the pros and cons. Reviews don’t need to have “review” in the name, nor do they need to have a numbered score.

        Genius.

        • shizamon says:

          ‘Reviews’ on this site are called “Wot I think” and “Judged” articles. This is an opinion piece concerning why Diablo 3′s Always-Online ‘functionality’ ruins the game’s immersion. When one of the aforementioned articles comes out concerning Diablo 3, then you can call it a review, Genius.

        • Lowbrow says:

          As shizamon says, not a review. This is an article about how the server interrupts made the author feel about the hollowness of the gameplay that he might not have noticed otherwise. The clue is the title. Another clue was the content of the article.

          Genius.

  119. Sidion says:

    This is one of the very very few crap games I’ve been utterly PISSED off at.

    I dealt with not being able to play the day the servers opened. (Even though I’d pre-ordered months ago.)

    I accepted that paying $59.99 for a digital copy was just what had to be done due to Blizz’s constant downloadable price-gouging.

    I even came to terms with the fact there’d be a real money auction house (While i detest all things that monetize games in such a fashion.)

    But never once did I think I’d be butt @%^&ed this hard by this always online crap. I’ve not played with a single person, because in all honesty I’d like the entire human race to jump in a fire. Yet here I am a few days into release lagging every couple of minutes.

    And why? Because my computer isn’t right next to my router. So the signal is crappy. It ruins the entire experience when my monk is attacking and nothing happens, only to seconds later warp back to the spot I was in and die.

    I’ve got a connection that can let me play BF3 without lagging and keeping my ping under 100, despite my shoddy connection to my router, yet playing D3 forces me to contend with monstrous game ending lag?

    Hell ban me from B.net just let me play my single player OFFLINE so I don’t have to contest with lag on top of this horribly easy game.

  120. HarrietTubgirl says:

    Thanks for an honest, good review. It’s funny how much people will buy into a game because it’s developed by a specific company or it’s a sequel. I personally wait to see if that game is actually worth buying before throwing my money at a company.

    • BluElement says:

      Just because you don’t like the game doesn’t mean that everyone who bought it is ignorant and only bought it for the name.

      I was in the closed beta and I enjoyed it enough to warrant me wanting to buy it.

      For someone who replied to my comment and accused me of not allowing someone to have an opinion, you sure don’t have a problem assuming everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed.

  121. Fiwer says:

    Wow, John writing a shitty and completely dishonest review about a popular game. That’s never happened!

  122. oceanview says:

    the butthurt over this shitty game is glorious. XD

    • Shooop says:

      Yes, everyone, including game journalists like John should stop talking about their impressions of the most anticipated games of several years just because you think it’s shit. How selfish of them.

  123. Eric_CC says:

    I have liked this site for a long time but really your constant b!tching about Diablo 3 is beginning to turn me away. Diablo 3 is a great game – because it is fun. Relative to the genre, it is the best of the best. That the game is always-online is a huge plus for most regular people. That it is streamlined adds to the overall fun for most normal people. Don’t lose track of what PVE gaming is really about – fun.

    • Bhazor says:

      Always online DRM as a “feature” that “The vast majority” wanted?

      • jrodman says:

        It’s in the water.

      • Eric_CC says:

        You say that like DRM is the only thing accomplished by an always-online setup. It’s not.

        • oceanview says:

          indeed you forgot lag and disconnects :D

        • shizamon says:

          How does the always online feature benefit those who want to play single player? As has been stated in this comments section, 60% of Diablo 2 players never went online.

          • Eric_CC says:

            Those who want to play single player can look for a different game. If I want to play Tetris, I don’t break out Mario Bros. Diablo is an Online Action RPG.. it’s what it fundamentally is.

          • shizamon says:

            You’re skirting around one of your original points. The previous 2 games in the franchise had mostly single player users, I’ll repeat my question about your point again. Why does an always online ‘functionality’ help the single player users?

          • Eric_CC says:

            Always-on helps single-player gamers in the same way that Dropbox helps people and how iCloud helps – cloud syncing. But let’s face it – this is a multiplayer-focused design decision. It’s neither a bad or good design decision in and of itself.

          • Bhazor says:

            It is a co-op game with no private servers and no lan capabilities meaning you are forced to play on the same cramped servers as everyone else. Magnifying lag massively *and* ensuring all their personal details (including paypal details) are stored on a large server that is going to be hacked sooner or later.

            Is that a feature as well?

            For people playing in single player it also prevents them using mods or custom maps. And from playing it when they want.

            Is that a feature as well?

            When the only benefit to single player you can come up with is that it backs up your save then, yeah. I’ll take my offline mode back thank you.

            Always on DRM is always an abhorent decision. I can not believe that point is up for debate.

          • Velvetmeds says:

            “60% of Diablo 2 players never went online.”

            So that’s how many used some form of cheating? Good thing this DRM is there then, gtfo my game!

      • Shooop says:

        Since almost everyone interested in the game knew about it but bought it anyway, Blizzard has every reason to think so.

        • Brun says:

          You’re such a shining example of responsible consumerism. How could all of us dullards – who were just looking to have a bit of fun – have been so misguided? Surely we are to blame for any future DRM packed into a game by other companies. Surely.

          • Shooop says:

            1) I don’t make the rules the industry runs by. I just cringe as I observe them.

            2) Did I say anything about anyone pulling this kind of thing justified to do so? I can’t find anything like that in my post even when I read it backwards. Perhaps sideways? Or inverted?

        • Bhazor says:

          Assuming everyone who bought it knew about the always on drm is assuming a lot. Not everyone who plays the latest blockbuster games frequents game sites.

          • Shooop says:

            Most the people who are now complaining about it did though. And that’s a really bad sign for all of us – it means the industry can ignore complaints about a game’s more dubious “features” because most of those same people will buy it anyway.

            This entire debacle made the future of AAA PC gaming much more bleak.

          • Bhazor says:

            You’re assuming the people criticising it also bought it. Again, big assumption. I know I didn’t.

            The real proof will be the quarterly report where we find out how much D3 actually cost and how much it made. Bearing in mind it’s essentially costs as much to run as a full mmo (everything is run on the server) and has been in developement for like 8 years I’d be surprised if it cost less than $100,000,000. Add in running costs of servers and the profit margin begins to look a bit threadbare.

            Blizzard really need the RMAH to succeed. If it doesn’t then I don’t think the D3 servers will last for long.

    • alundra says:

      That the game is always-online is a huge plus for most regular people. That it is streamlined adds to the overall fun for most normal people.

      I don’t even know what to say, how do you call this kind of disconnection from reality?? Psychosis doesn’t even come close to this.

    • subedii says:

      Call me “irregular” then, since I don’t see having lag in my singleplayer gameplay as a huge plus.

  124. tkioz says:

    I’d have to agree with almost everything in the article. It’s just not that good a game, if it wasn’t for the Diablo name the reviewers would be panning it, but since it is a Diablo game they are letting nostalgia rule.

    I had more fun with Torchlight, a game that was 80% cheaper. I’ve hit Act II and so far I’m very underwhelmed with the skills, I don’t like the graphics they are very dull and drab, Torchlight vibrant and interesting colors missed, and the loot (one of the key things in these games) is just plain bleeeeeeh. There is almost no customizing, I spent a good 30mins looking for a talent tree or skill allocations… only to find nothing more then a glorified spell book…

    Frankly I’m regretting the purchase, even leaving aside all the DRM issues.

  125. Ateius says:

    A friend of mine, devoted Diablo fan that he is, bought not only himself but also me a copy (since I wasn’t going to purchase it myself, always-online DLC yadda yadda yadda). We’ve been co-opping the game, and I’ve gotten to see him go from fanboyish exuberance to jaded resignation over the course of Act 1.

    Here’s the problem: Diablo 3 is a good game – and nothing else. It’s well designed. The combat is visceral and rewarding. The pacing is good. It’s a good, solid ARPG. But that’s all it is. It doesn’t do anything NEW. If I squint a little bit and mentally replace the biblical references with those of ancient mythology I’m playing Titan’s Quest: Eternally Slightly Too Dark Edition. Except TQ actually posed a challenge, and I literally did not use a single health potion until the end of Act 1 in this game, nor did my friend.

    For a game with this much hype, with this kind of legacy, I expected something revolutionary. I expected it to be the next Diablo 2, with the same sort of game-changing, genre-creating impact. Instead, it just is Diablo 2, in a shiny new engine stuck permanently on Easy Mode. If it weren’t for the painstakingly created CGI cinematics I could believe this came from any one of a dozen minor developers.

    Speaking of those cinematics. While I haven’t faced anything game-breaking so far, the quality on those aforementioned cinematics is dreadful. The sound in them is spotty, popping in and out, and frequently desyncs by up to 5 seconds from the visuals. At one point it literally froze halfway through a cutscene, and I had to exit the game and re-enter (fortunately since we’re doing co-op I just popped back in next to my friend, losing no progress). I don’t know if I’ve got corrupted files or it’s the stupid DRM lagging me out (as it does in combat sometimes much to my annoyance) but it’s pretty shoddy either way.

    Bottom line? I wouldn’t own this game if my friend hadn’t bought it for me, and quite frankly, I wouldn’t be playing it if I weren’t doing co-op with him. If I want some solo ARPG fun, I’ll be going back to Titan’s Quest.

    • BluElement says:

      Your comment was infinitely more professional than this article and your points are completely valid. I do disagree with you on the cutscenes though. I’ve only seen the first one (right before act 2), but I thought it was amazing. I don’t think your problems stem from the DRM, though.

      it’s funny that you bring up how it’s too dark, because one of the main complaints from Diablo fanboys was that it was too bright. :P

    • Bhazor says:

      Blizzard haven’t pushed the envelope or revolutionised anything since Warcraft 3.
      All they’ve really done since is release updates.
      Starcraft 2 was just Starcraft HD
      WoW was basically Everquest with cartoony graphics and a much more accessible design.
      Now Diablo 3 is Diablo 2 but with the Guild Wars/Magic the Gathering skill deck system.

      I have to wonder how many more “perfectly fine” games they can get away before the Blizzard fans realise most of their best guys have left by now. Or until Activision are finished choking the rest out.

      • Lowbrow says:

        Credit where credit is due: the D3 skill changes were a bold move that alienated some fans. Personally, I find it has made my single-player gaming a lot more fun as I switch my skills around whenever I level to try everything out and switch again when I fell like I’m getting too in a click-not-think zone.

        It’s not revolutionary though, so your point still stands.

    • cavalier says:

      You make a good point, better than Walker did in the actual article. I still enjoy the game immensely. Other than shaming blizzard for the shaky launch I am liking the game a lot. I do wish there wish there was more depth to the classes, but really, if you look back at diablo 2 there were only a few build that were viable in the harder difficulties. i will miss being able to make crazy builds to play through normal with. Its a solid game, its just not the genre breaking game we were all expecting and the disappoint is showing.

    • UncleLou says:

      I’ve said it before: I loved Titan Quest to bits. I’ve played it for hundreds of hours, through all modes, but TQ on normal is *so* easy all the way through that it’s not really the game to replace D3 with if you’re looking for more of a challenge from the beginning.

  126. Gary W says:

    For the sake of videogame historians, someone must write a working crack / emulator. Otherwise future generations will be doomed to watch D3 replays.

  127. FunkyBadger3 says:

    I *heart* you, John Walker.

  128. Elmokki says:

    I think Blizzard failed slightly with the difficulty. With monk and apparently barbarian the normal mode – which I bet many will exclusively play – is ludicrously easy indeed. I think I died total of like 3 times in the whole campaign. With mage it was a bit harder, but still not hard. When it’s a multi hour timesink every character has to do to advance to higher difficulties, I would’ve hoped it had been at least mildly challenging so that it won’t feel like a boring grind.

    Funny thing is, though, that the things nightmare and hell (and presumeably inferno) add that make it really hard aren’t really the bosses. It’s the random elite trash mobs. Some of those ability combos are just batshit insane and with a party of monk, barbarian, witch doctor and demon hunter take a fairly long time to kill.

    But yeah, all in all, solid if not overwhelmingly awesome game as can be expected from Blizzard. Shitty drm though, but it hasn’t really mattered since the launch night. I’ve had fun playing with friends and I bet I’ll have fun with Torchlight II and possibly Path of Exile too.

    • MrMud says:

      Its intentional that the hardest part of nightmare/hell/inferno are the really tricky elite/champion modifiers. It was the same with D2.

      With regards to the article I cant say anything about the outages because they are inexcusable. However claiming that D3 is a hollow game after not having finished it on normal is ludicrous and akin to claiming that WoW is simplistic after playing the first 30 levels.

  129. Camreth says:

    Diablo 3 has two major problems as a single player game, requiring a always on internet connection is obviously good for the real money auction house, but as someone who only plays solo and without any intention of using the rmah it is just annoying. Almost every play session i have at least one point where i expeience lag and twice random dc (and this is with one of the best connections available in my country).

    Also not being able to choose difficulty at level 1 is just absurd, normal difficulty is essentially holding down auto attack with the occational skill or healing potion. Having three-four base difficulty levels that scaled with level would have made the game a lot more enjoyable imo.

    A minor gripe is also the heaps of utterly useless loot, a white axe that takes up two inventory slots is worth ~3 gold while 100+ gold is randomly dropped by a single monster.

    Then again I’m only playing d3 to pass the time until torchlight II release, Diablo’s story is better but torchlight is better designed as far as i’m concerned.

    • Hematite says:

      Path of Exile has a really great solution to the trash loot problem.

      First, it has a much stronger socketing system than D2 had. Skills are all on gems, which need to be inserted into a socket of the appropriate colour (you can take them out for free too, it’s just how you equip them). Sockets can be linked too, so you can add support gems to your favourite skills for multiple projectiles, mana leech, added fire damage, whatever. Having a large number of appropriately coloured, linked sockets makes an item very valuable even if it’s white.

      Second, there’s not gold in the economy. It’s a barter economy (even with npcs) based on crafting items. Selling trash items is only worth one fifth of the lowest value crafting item, so you’d better learn quickly that the white items aren’t worth muling back to town to sell. Even blues aren’t usually worth it because you have to use an identify scroll, which is a crafting item, to identify them so you’d lose massive amounts of money by hauling and IDing every blue.

      Third, the crafting system works by taking a base item and upgrading it somehow, so if you’ve got the dosh you can start with an ok item and build it up to be amazing. One of the best ways to do this is to get a white item that has a good base type with nice sockets and start crafting it up. You could start with a blue, but first you have to ID it (which uses crafting credit) just to find out if its random abilities are any good so it’s not a big advantage over starting from white.

      In summary – every item that drops, even whites, has the potential to be useful for your character, and you can tell that while it’s still on the ground, and there’s little benefit to picking it up if you won’t use it yourself.

      It takes away most of the inventory management minigame even though it’s still inventory-tetris style because you’re only filling it up with things you might actually want to use.

      For comparison purposes, the Torchlight pet’s ability to sell your trash for you still requires more work because you actually had to pick up and shift that stuff in the first place rather than just leaving it where it fell.

  130. pantognost says:

    I think that this article:
    1) is written in rage after a disconnect, which is very unprofessional,
    OR
    2) is active campaigning against the horrendous always on DRM in which case you should be more subtle to be effective ;) case of note: chekpoints being hours away is simply not true.

    Your opinion is valid. The always online debacle is corporate bullying. Just fight it smart.

    • copernicus_phoenix says:

      Perhaps it’s:

      3) John Walker’s genuine opinion.

      As you grow up, you’ll realise that people have their own minds with their own opinions. It’s a realisation which will make you much happier.

      • pantognost says:

        I never said that ot was not John Walker’s genuine opinion. I just said that it i think that this opinion is affected by either an agenda or emotion. Last time I checked this was still allowed. The reason I thought that, is because he is nitpicking and bashing on a subjective level every design decision in D3.
        I already mentioned that, having played the game I call false, to put it mildly, his statement that checkpoints are hours apart. Taking into account other articles about the debacle of always on DRM and the expressed fear into these articles, that the apparent success of D3 would bring about a wave of new games-as-services products i am legitimised to say that this unusually subjectively negative article is a product of agenda and emotion.

        When you grow up you might learn that actual arguments might fulfill your self esteem vaccum better than snide remarks and thus help you on a happier life.

  131. UncleLou says:

    That reads disappointingly like dictated by an agenda rather than an independent look at the game, to the point where it sounds almost like a satire, but I guess it just goes to show how the general attitude with which we approach something colours everything (that obviously works both ways).

    Some points I find a bit strange, like the complaints about enemy behaviour/encounter design. It’s one of the areas where the game absolutely shines and raises the bar.

    • Velvetmeds says:

      Do you think these hipsters could have possibly viewed this game objectively? Of course not. RPS gets worse every year.

      • Davie says:

        Ah, “hipsters”. The word just refers to people whose opinions you disagree with now, doesn’t it?

        I’d much rather read a subjective review from a writer who was genuinely interested in D3 than a bland, lifeless “objective analysis” by some guy paid to give the game a medium-high score.

        You want objectivity, I don’t think RPS is your site. And if all you’re going to do is complain about it, I don’t think anyone’s going to miss you when you leave.

        • Improv says:

          Yes he is a hipster. None of his points are true. At all. He is hating on the game just to hate. And payed reviews? Let me get this straight. Blizzard has gone around and given money to EVERY single publication in one giant conspiracy that has somehow not been blown to give the game a high score? Yet not one voice, not one publication has been leaked or someone came out and said it. I see so you’re one of those people. *rolls eyes*

          • copernicus_phoenix says:

            “Hipster”. What is this nonsense?

            Oh – you mean he has his own opinion that he hasn’t run past ‘the internet’ first? Some of the groupthink in this thread is truly shocking.

      • Reefpirate says:

        Strangely you sound like the hipster, what with noticing things getting less ‘hip’ every year…

        This article was written by Mr. John Walker, who is only one of several voices on RPS. And even though I disagree with his seemingly negative take on the game so far (I’m having an absolute good time), I anxiously await more writing from him and the rest of RPS to hear a good discussion that is hopefully a little more intelligent than this comment section.

        • Velvetmeds says:

          Wooo here comes the defence force *holds up hands*

          There is nothing intelligent about what is going on there. RPS writers are jelly that a game with this DRM is breaking sales records and is genuinely good. The battle is lost, shut up, get over it and have fun.

          If D3 felt hollow for him.. It’s cause he’s hollow, not the game.

          • StevenM1988 says:

            “Hipster”? “Defense force”? “Jelly”? I think you’re confused, this isn’t Reddit where you can throw buzzwords at someone else’s opinion until it goes away.

            You can disagree with the article but at least the writer is able to articulate his feelings on the game without resorting to “it’s fun, any opinion that isn’t mine isn’t “”objective”", get over it”.

  132. Reefpirate says:

    Just thought I’d stop by once more to let it be known that I spent a whole bunch of hours this evening/this morning playing this game and I happen to think it was totally excellent. Can’t wait to dive back in… Then ‘beat’ it on normal, then carry on into the higher difficulty levels… Then make another character, etc. etc.

    Connection problems are annoying occasionally, but never did I end up noticing this game being ‘hollow’.

  133. Improv says:

    Sorry but I think this is John Walker having some sort of vendetta gainst blizzard due to the always on DRM and once again acting hipster like hating on a popular game. With 15 reviews in it stands at an 89 metacritic. The lowest scores are 3 80′s. Rest are 90′s and up. Every review has the opposite opinion of what you have and playing the game myself I don’t know where you came up with these points. This is easily the best ARPG out hands down. Incredibly polished and very, very fun to play even in SP mode. There is NOTHING broken about this game.

    We get it. You enjoy overly complicated or indie games. Any game that dares to be a little too casual for you is a bad game and an “ungame.”

    PS: Get over the online requirement.

    • copernicus_phoenix says:

      Have you read the post? Or any of the text of the reviews? No one likes the always on DRM. Don’t assume that because the (meaningless) numerical score of a review is high, that the author loves being treated like a freeloading, pirating criminal. It’s perfectly possible to like the game, and dislike the DRM!

      • pantognost says:

        I hate this always on DRM BS. It is pure corporate bullying. I just think that RPS should carry the fight with more gusto than that. It is my opinion, at this time, that this was a rage piece.

    • JackDandy says:

      No, fuck that noise.

      As a costumer, I refuse to bend over to always-online DRM that only serves the developer’s pockets. Especially when there are better, cheaper, DRM-free alternatives.

    • Bhazor says:

      Every single professional review points out that the drm is bullshit and that the game itself doesn’t do anything new.
      Also Torchlight has a metacritic score of 84.

      Your point?

    • Milky1985 says:

      “There is NOTHING broken about this game. ”

      My experience of trying to play on sunday during the “unscheduled maintence” (which all the blizzard fanboys were saying is perfectly fine its just maintence, not accepting the fact that in computer terms “unscheduled maintence” means anything from “oh god we turned of the wrong machine” to “the server room is on fire”, either way they screwed something up) says hi and begs to differ.

  134. ZX k1cka55 48K says:

    You guys are so entitled.

    • pantognost says:

      Yes entitled to our right to play the game we purchased and has a clear single player component that has no business requiring a connection other than Blizzard’s money printing auction houses.

  135. pipman3000 says:

    you guys are trying too hard to convince yourself buying this game was a good decision.

  136. shiptonator says:

    I think it’s bad that I have regularly died via DC’s and just as I got the Barbarian to level 10 he’s disappeared… so no difficulty unlock yet. It take the piss really. An otherwise enjoyable game.

  137. SpakAttack says:

    Yet more error 37 goodness today.

    “We are currently addressing an issue with the Battle.net service. During this time the Battle.net servers and any online games will be unavailable for play.”

    Funny, I thought all Diablo 3 games were online?

  138. Thefallenhun says:

    Meh, I’m not sure I agree with this review. Normal difficulty is not tough at all, but once you get to nightmare, you’ll be dying more frequently. Also the enemies get much more entertaining then too. You’ll meet unique mob combinations like “jailer frozen arcane” which will mean the enemeis are dropping lazer turrets, trapping you and hurling icebombs all at the same time. As for loot drop, I don’t know what to tell you, sometimes I get great stuff, sometimes I get nothing. That’s the way it works in a game like this. As for the server issues, I can’t comment because I haven’t experienced any, but I know many people have had trouble.

    I don’t at all agree with always online or the way blizzard handled the launch, nor do I like the real money auction house, but the actual gameplay is pretty good. The author just seems really frustrated with the server issues and generally unhappy at what blizzard is doing.

  139. SwiftRanger says:

    Well John, this article makes little sense outside of your rightful complaints about possible login and lag issues. It’s something I thought I’d never say about a RPS article but I don’t know how on earth you could claim some of these things.

    Diablo III has some little tidbits that could be better (imo especially in the UI/menu parts) but it still overtakes the crown as new leader in the genre. It was totally worth the wait.

    It’s definitely new as it breaks up with DII in a lot of ways. Enemy design (vortexers, wallers, nightmares,… wonderful stuff) and the action gameplay especially are the primary advantages it has now imo but the skill system which borrowed a lot of great things from Guild Wars 1 is also worth mentioning. It’s quite the opposite of restrictive (do you select elective mode though).

    Zooming in is nice during lore conversations. Rotating the camera isn’t necessary, we’re still talking about an isometric game by design here. The Act II town might be less of a chore if you clicked on more characters than just the merchants. It’s not as infuriating as the Act III town setup in DIII.

    DIII Normal is like DII Normal. Really. Go play both again I’d say.

    Spamming potions would have been better then? No.

    I buy at merchants, craft items and find great gear on monsters. I don’t see the balance problem.

    Followers do sound repetitive after a while idd but that’s not about writing, that’s about the frequency of their lines in the action parts. Hear them out in town to get more out of them. The story is fixed of course but that’s not poor writing. It’s how pretty much every ARPG works.

    All I am saying is: DIII is great fun and probably better than DII.

  140. lorigga says:

    Thanks for this review, it really made me think and evaluate how I feel about D3. While I would have appreciated a few more details regarding enemies and gameplay, I enjoyed the article’s composition. I think addressing that sense of “magic” we have all felt, and how it was broken by technical issues only to reveal deeper flaws was brilliant.

    Personally, I think expectations have been a huge point of contention through this dialogue. When I see a Blizzard game with an incremented number at the end, I expect it to refine and iterate it’s predecessor. For that reason, D3 has been exactly what I wanted from a sequel to D2. At the same time, that’s also why I expect Titan to be innovative and feel completely new. I expect Titan to cast a new “spell” on me. I’m also really concerned that Titan will let me down because I can understand that Blizzard hasn’t released a new IP for a very long time.

    So essentially, I’ve withheld expectations regarding innovation and really didn’t want D3 to deviate from the groundwork laid by D1 and D2. It’s totally just my opinion, I have absolutely no reason to believe that anyone else should feel that way or change their viewpoint simply because of my insignificant comment. I understand that Mr. Walker wanted something different than myself and don’t begrudge him in the least for it. I think it’s nice that people that feel disenfranchised by Blizzard and D3 have felt enough comfort from this article that they can voice their concerns.

  141. Kdansky says:

    John Walker: “Why didn’t they add more crap to D2???!!”

    Game designer: “Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”

    Guess who’s right.

  142. iob says:

    I only got Diablo 3 to play it together with friends. Those friends live all across europe. Thus, I need to be online to play with them anyway.

    Diablo 3′s single player experience is mediocre at best. 10 hours and you are done with the game. You only get most of your money if you play it again and again anyway.

    I don’t know if many players want to beat hell, inferno etc in single player (or if it’s even possible to do so) but imho this game doesn’t “suck” for me because of the always on.

    Other games which have always on which i want to play offline (settlers, other ubisoft titles ) suck a lot though.

    Other games which i would love to play in lan with friends but can’t (Dota2, Sc2, Lol) suck more.

    But I can’t figure out why blizzard has to do it again – a good hack and slay that just works. Why can’t any competitor bring out a title of that quality?

    Is it that hard to code a game like this?

  143. Kanakotka says:

    Stop your inane whining, John Walker. Your opinions on the game are moot. Boo hoo, the shop keepers in act 2 didn’t have the best items avaible in the game? Seriously? This is a rant, not journalism.

    I’ve had little to no trouble with D3, love the online only system, because unlike you, i actually played Diablo 2 and know why this is quite necessary.

  144. reggiep says:

    RPS has been hating on Diablo for a while now, while also propping up Torchlight. That’s a rather intractable position. You have to be engaging in some serious double think to believe that Torchlight even approaches 1/5 of what even Diablo 2 offered, let alone D3.

    This article seems like little more than sensationalist junk. What’d you do? Play the game for 2 hours and then write this to rile up the haters? You didn’t even give the game a fair shake, and that’s just poor journalism. Sadly, I thought RPS had higher standards than this trash.

  145. Final says:

    I have a question for everyone, What happens when Blizzard decides that it will not support Diablo 3 anymore, (I do not care why, i can come up with 100s of reason why but that is not the point).
    The point is if they stop supporting this game then even though I bought the game I would never be able to play the game again.

    The always online DRM is the only reason I did not buy Diablo 3.

    Another thought for everyone, what was the fun part about Diablo 2, was it blizzard’s server games, or was it the mods that people made and gave out freely to all?

    Well I am off to play a good aRPG, Dungeon Siege 2 Broken worlds, with the Aranna Legacy Mod.

  146. reddy67 says:

    Well, i have to say im disappointed,and i was looking forward to this game… living in Nz, i think its inexcusable to make a game online only…..if u didn’t want a solo mode, don’t make one, and especially not online only…
    For one we don’t have dedicated servers, and those iv read who are playing it , its utterly unplayable trying to play during the day here, with getting pings of 500/ 600 and above, if u play after 6pm here the lag improves, but then there is stil dropouts, and times when it is just not playable…….AS GAMERS, we should not have been put in this position to fight with lag..
    Secondly most of gaming has been for the single player experience, i have not bought diablo 1 and diablo 2 in the past because they are multiplayer games, i play my games on my time when i have time, not when you have to fit into a bracket , and hope for the best !
    i have noticed there is a MULTITUDE of Diablo3 merchandise out there, which obviously is to cah in on the popularity of Diablo, and i wonder if this Auction house is of the same ilk, and therefore getting the most people online possible…hmmm, nevathe less i did buy a t-shirt, but certainly
    i can’t see me buying the game and i was looking at the collectors edition, , im just not in the market of being forced to do something that is not needed, sooo sorry Blizzard Thanks but no thanks….:(

  147. SnuffSaid says:

    “I think I’ve died four times thus far, playing solo, and try as I might can find no way to increase the difficulty to anything halfway interesting.”

    Seriously?

    You play solo on Normal difficulty to Act 2 and are complaining the game is too easy? The majority of players don’t die at all on Normal, it might aswell be a tutorial. Try playing Hell and Inferno difficulties, or better yet, either of those difficulties on Hardcore mode, which is without a doubt one of the tensest and most demanding game experiences ever.

    You may love RPGs, but all I see here is somebody who got butthurt about losing a minuscule amount of progress due to a disconnection and wrote an angry review. I lost a level 40 character thanks to Blizzard’s bumbling, but I just started again, because despite a shaky start this game is still one of the best ever made.

    • impsy says:

      Yea i think this guys a little butthurt. The servers are pretty much impeccable now as well other than the server maintenances. I also played Path of Exile, I still have my level 80 character on the legacy server, it’s a good game but the polish still isn’t their and Diablo 3 just feels better. I’ll still play PoE/Grim Dawn because they have their own unique ideas implemented but for now Diablo 3 is one hell of an amazing game. I play Hardcore exclusively in D3 and I have lost I think one character to lag at 60 but the rest have been my own stupid decisions, granted I have had 14 level 60′s so far haha :)

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Respond to our gibber

Read our finest words

Unlearning To Share: The Industry Hatred Of Human Nature

Search for clues

Browse the archive