Diablo III Reviews: Part III


Another batch of DiabloWikiDiablo III Reviews fresh off the presses.

  • Joystiq.com: 5/5 score, much love.
  • Nerd Reactor reviews up through Nightmare with individual grades for various categories that average out to an overall A-.
  • PC World NZ rates D3 a 4.5/5.
  • AtomicMPC rates Diablo III a 79%. The author seems to like everything about the game except for the online requirement.
  • BlogCritics.com submits a five-page review wiht a 4/5 final score.
  • The Koalition offers a lengthy review that awards a 8/10 total.
  • RP Site offers a very long review with a final score of 90%.
  • Gamers Daily News gives a 9.0/10 final score.
  • Games.on.net hosted a roundtable discussion but didn’t include an actual review score. They’re fans of the skills and graphics, but dislike the technical issues and storytelling.
  • Gearburn.com has what they call a review, but if there’s a final score somewhere I couldn’t find it.
  • Kotaku didn’t give a score either, but the review is strongly positive on the whole.
  • DigitalSpy UK awards a 4/5 score.
  • GamingBlend gives up a 4/5 score.
  • Sydney Central offers lots of short paragraphs and positive words, but no score.
  • Attack of the Fan Boy offers words and also a video review, with a final score of “I Loved.”
  • You can see all published D3 reviews archived in the Diablo Wiki in the DiabloWikiDiablo III reviews article. There are now 46 listed, including all the ones on Metacritic. If you’ve seen one we haven’t added yet, let us know.

    Tagged As: | Categories: Diablo III Reviews

    Comments

    You're not logged in. Register or login to post a comment.
    1. Somehow, I don’t see much worth in most of the available reviews. Maybe they are written for casual gamers? I’m waiting for a review that would go through stuff like the recently mentioned issues with end-game items and all that details; for a review from somebody who can underline the weak points of the game. Don’t know if such a person exists, though. Maybe Flux…? Seems like everybody is playing on the safe side giving the game ~8/10 score.

      • Scores seems fair to me 🙂 7 or 8 out 10 is exactly what the game should receive hehe  😈

        “Now now Icy stay cool you might say”… Hell no!

        What made d2 worth a 12 year investment was the item hunt. hmmm but that does not exist in d3 at all:(

        Not whining btw 🙂 just stating… Used to be a great supporter of d3, well now im just a supporter 🙂 how they managed such a crappy item affix/prefix pool is beyound me

         

    2. I must admit I’m starting to enjoy the game more after a week so I’m glad these aren’t day 1 reviews but still they must be questioned – everyone that works for a game reviewer and has played the game really likes it?…dubious. As always.

    3. Actually, I think rhaye’s and JWBS’s points answer each other. Everyone really likes the game because the gameplay is really good, no question. The concern I have is about long-term itemization and keeping the game fun for years. My hope is that if we fans keep expressing our displeasure, Blizzard will listen. It has worked for the Starcraft II Community (slowly but surely) and just as Blizzard wants to keep making money off esports, they want to keep making money off the auction house, so they have an incentive to listen to us.

      • I hope people would just understand that its only been one week of D3, Diablo 2 would not been so popular at all if it would have been like it was in day 1..

        Though i believe most of those “haters” are the ones who came to D2LOD after the Enigma etc runeword’s era, and not understanding Classic D2 itemization.. But i hope Blizzard dont make same mistakes on D3’s expansions.

        • I don’t disagree with this, but I think the “D2 had problems at first” argument can be taken too far. On the one hand, yes, we can expect changes, but on the other hand, they should have learned something from LOD – every new release shouldn’t be reinventing the wheel.

    4. The problem with “official” reviews is that they’ve already judged the game before playing it. It’s like expecting critics to provide honest criticism of a 200 million dollar James Cameron flick. I find the best reviews for games by browsing sites like Amazon.com or Metacritic. Sift through and ignore the obvious 10 and 0 ratings and you’ll actually find some unbiased and honest reviews by everyday people who make valid points, good and bad.

      • Hmm, I’d disagree. Sure, among the games journalists, there are well-written, thoughtful reviews and ones that aren’t… but it is pretty easy to tell by reading who actually played it and then thought about it, and who didn’t. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff… but if you do that I think you get better information than from player reviews, where a mob mentality (both positive and negative) prevails and hugely outnumbers any reasoned discourse to the point where finding a genuinely informative review is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Most player reviewers, incidentally, ALSO judged the game before playing it :p

    5. Seems that those people that gives it on the lower-end of the scores does so not because they don’t love the game, but because they hate the online-only component…

      I agree that this is indeed a valid negative points, but with just that it appears that they’re really biased for that alone. 

    6. Pretty simple: D3 is great the first time you play it through, it just lacks lasting appeal. This is a problem for us but not for the reviewers who play this game for a few days and don’t think anyone would want to replay a video game.

      For instance, I quote IncGamers’ own review:

      “Want a well-rounded Wizard? A Disintegrate beam, with Electrocute against groups and Diamond Skin for survivability, will see you right – and you’ve still got three slots to play with. Add Frost Nova, Wave of Force, and Teleport, and you can teleport into a group of enemies, freeze them in place, and then use Wave of Force for some area-of-effect damage. Use runes, and you can tweak this further; lower the cooldown of Frost Nova, say, or have the death of frozen enemies trigger more Frost Novas”

      They continue to gush praise about the variety in D3’s skill system even though every actual D3 player knows by now if you want to do inferno there is only one very narrow viable build. That rune that makes frozen enemies spawn frost novas on death? Completely useless in inferno. And then he claims you can teleport into a group of enemies and disable them. Yeahhhhh.

      Nothing whatsoever about the loot.

      No wonder the review is positive.

    7. I can’t help but feel all of these reviews are forced. The \online only\ requirement is NOT the only problem with the game. That said, it is quite fun, although the dialogue, narrative, and character depth are quite disappointing.I’m really baffled more people aren’t complaining about the slow difficulty curve. I played a wizard my first time through Acts I-IV: I’m not a phenomenal gamer yet I found it so easy that I caught myself daydreaming at times. It would take an aneurism to get killed by most trash mobs. The only bosses that really made me focus were Belial and Diablo; I beat Belial on my first attempt and Diablo on my second. I 1-shotted all the other bosses.My problem now is that I want to try other classes (indeed, I’ve begun, my monk is 15) but the Normal difficulty grind is unbearably boring. If we take a relative perspective, \Normal\ is the \Easy\ difficulty. This design decision is killing replayability for me. Over all, this game is plagued with bad design decisions, such as forbidding WASD (it breaks EULA to simulate this with third-party software and could relieve you of your 60$ game). I hope that they eventually see the light and allow fresh level 30 characters after Normal difficulty, a la WoW hero classes.

    Comments are closed.