This is a fairly accurate review. The game itself is fantastic for the most part. The only knock I have on the gameplay is the WoW style "event" boss fights. They are lame. Diablo and D2 handled boss fights much better. But the biggest problem is the online requirement for single player. It's a shockingly bad idea that Blizzard went ahead with, ignoring the outcries from its customers. I've personally experienced plenty of knockback lag, disconnects, achievements I've already completed being forgotten by the server the next time I log in, and the inability to play at all due to the servers being down for one reason or another. For that reason, I'd give the game a little lower score than the reviewer here awards. I might go as low as a 7.5.
@guoital @Shanks_D_Chop I could not play for pretty much the entire first day, in spite of the fact that I drove to Gamestop and waited in line until midnight to get the game, then waited another 3 hours (for unknown reasons) until it was midnight in California so I was allowed to play. Then I attempted to log in for 2 hours in order to play a single player game. From what I understand, the servers were up several hours later in the day but I wouldn't know since I was at work. When I got home from work, they were down again. All I wanted to do was play the SINGLE PLAYER GAME I just paid $60 for.
Since then I experienced lag fairly frequently, and been booted once. My buddy has had worse luck, being booted several times per game session. Mind you, he's playing single player while this is happening. The alway-on DRM is a ridiculous power-grab and should not be taken lightly. It causes the game to perform much more poorly than it otherwise would. When I'm visiting my parents, who live in a rural area and only have dial-up access, I can't even play the game at all. I can't play the single player game I paid $60 for because of the stupid always-on DRM.
I have some tolerance for a modest amount of server hiccups for multiplayer. That is normal. However, to require an internet connection to an unreliable server in order to play single player is ridiculous. I'm sorry if some people pirate your games Blizzard, but don't punish the people who give you their money for something a handful of pirates do. That is wrong, wrong, wrong. This coming from a guy who has purchased every title you have released since you've been called Blizzard.
This is incredibly small potatoes compared to the bug Blizzard intentionally created -- the requirement to have a constant connection to battle.net even for single player games. That particular bug renders the game unplayable every time battle.net's unreliable servers go down.
The guy with the glasses in the first video seems to have no idea what he's talking about. He's wrong on pretty much every point. Is he playing devil's advocate on purpose?
@ares_dc IGN reviewed this game, too, and gave it 85/100. That's the exact same score Gamespot gave it. The metascore is 82/100. Nearly identical.
If you want to be closed minded and not give this game a chance, no one is forcing you to buy it. The whole idea of this site is to check out different games and see which ones you might like. You don't think you'll like this one? Fine. Move on to the next one. You don't need to write a manifesto. Nobody cares and few will read it. The same goes for your choice of gaming websites. You don't like this one? Fine. Move on to the next one. Nobody cares.
I'm glad people are starting to speak out against these trends. I was alarmed the first time I saw things like DRM, DLC and a la carte purchases, because I knew where it was headed. Those things are very powerful tools of greed for publishers and they are getting more and more creative with it. Look at Skylanders, for example. After you've paid your $70 for your game, you have to buy 5 more toys at $10 each if you want to play all the content on the disc. That's a total of $120 for one game. Wow!
I've been waiting years and years for Diablo 3 and have already ordered it, but the real money auction house scares the living shit out of me. Publishers are moving more and more toward giving you just a "starter edition" with your $50-$60 purchase.
You even see this sort of thing popping up in facebook games now. It's spiraling out of control.
The article fails to mention *why* LucasArts would do such a thing. What was LucasArts' motivations for flushing money down the toilet? Maybe they just thought the game sucked and wouldn't make any money. Without a clear motivation being cited, this just seems like another disgruntled employee story.
RoadStar1602's comments