RollinThundr wrote on May 21, 2012, 18:59:
I really don't understand how Blizzard has survived as long as they have on really good cinematics and hype. SC2 is the same thing, a 10 year old game with a somewhat shinier coat of paint that still manages to look like it should have shipped in 06.
Even with the success of WoW all WoW is really is a carebear EQ in a warcraft skin, yet people flock to it due to a developer name on the box. I just can't understand how Blizzard has legions of fanboys when in reality all of their titles are really pretty mediocre.
Its a mystery, wrapped in a smokescreen, soaked in obfuscation.
I don't get it, but I'm sure someone will tell me I'm crazy if I say it. Starcraft was a good game in its time and so was D1 and D2. But they weren't 'earth-shattering, world-creating' good. World of Warcraft is the most bewildering success story I have ever seen and I have no real explanation for it.
All that said, I don't doubt that D3 is an OK game. I just don't get all the reviews saying its a 9/10 or 8/10. It's a generic ARPG that adds nothing, innovates nothing and has the usual Blizzard polish. How in the hell does something like that take 12+ years to make while the Witcher 2 took 4 years? How is clicking on stuff in D3 so much more satisfying than clicking on stuff in TL or Titan Quest?
Even the reviews that sing its praises say the story is crap and the narrative is laughable. But that stuff gets a hearty ignore, along with the always online requirements, and the rest of the game gets a huge thumbs up. So the generic, loot-chasing gameplay earns the game a 9, but it doesn't really do much that hasn't been done before(except take away attribute points and skill choices).