Hell I loved sword coast legends & it got destroyed by critics.
SCL was hated by critics AND fans.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
And I LOVE Diablo 3, and think it's an improvement over the others. And I know others who feel the same. So it's not universal that Diablo fans hate Diablo 3. It's mostly just that the ones who do hate it are really, really loud about it.
Well, look to metacritic USER reviews, look to the comments on Jay Wilson GDC and reviews of long time fans of D2 like MrLLamaSC.
MRLLamaSC had a amazing video showing why D3 is not Diablo.
Originally Posted by Svalr
Diablo 3 has changed significantly too and it has become a lot better,
RoS only fixed the loot.
The artstyle, game mechanics, character progression, etc; still completely awful and nonsensical.
Originally Posted by Svalr
Most don't get anywhere near that, only 32% for example finished DA:O and I consider it one of the best RPG's ever made.
DA:O is very long and I don't consider the best RPG ever made. In fact, is far inferior to previous BioWare RPG's like Baldur's Gate 2.
Originally Posted by Svalr
And then look at a game like Path of Exile, it's fundamentally different than Diablo 2 in so many ways but people still regard it as a spiritual successor to Diablo 2.
Because PoE has far more Diablo on it than D3 and Immortal combined.
Originally Posted by robertthebard
(...)very few people know anything about it that wasn't fed to them by a media outlet trying to shut it down, back in the really old days, claiming it's devil worship and such. Even in my Renaissance Fair circles, there weren't a lot of players. (...)
Is a anecdotal.
And the fact is, more faithful D&D games like BG3 will outsell more bastardizations of D&D games like SCL. Niche or not.
Originally Posted by robertthebard
The reason why game journalists reviewed Diablo 3 positively is because it's a good game, whether it's the sequel people wanted or expected to Diablo 2 is another matter entirely.
And the point of a game is to please the FANS, not please game journos.
If fans rate a game 4/10 and journos rate 10/10, the game is trash to the target audience. I don't care if a guy who can't pass cuphead tutorial thinks that is a masterpiece. The fans know that is a trash.
Game journalists only on past wrote good reviews. You can't compare modern game journos "i can't hit an insect swarm with an sword on pfkm, 0/10" with 90s journos. Bellow a good game journo review
This is a 90 game journo reviewing an game. As you can see, they are reviewing the game as a part of the game audience. They don't wanna an SSI hardcore RPG to be accessible to non RPG fans. The basic of critique is to critique the object of the critique according to the proposal. I an not capable of reviewing a final fantasy, xenoblade or jrpg games cuz I would probably write something like "androgynous teenager with an oversized sword. the most nonsensical weapon ever. I hate it and is very cliche, the game should let me play as a assassin, technomancer, necromancer, or something cool and the mechanics and narrative are so disconect that you don't fell immersed into the game. 0/10", the guys who should be reviewing this JRPG's are the JRPG's fans. Not an guy like myself that becomes so bored with any of this games that can't play even if I get paid to play it.
Modern game journos are AWFUL. Their reviews are completely trash.
See the reviewer that I posted giving 7/10 to TW2 and 10/10 to DA:2.
Originally Posted by robertthebard
I think that there is a ton of negative bias against Japanese games or sexualized content in particular from game journalists .
I agree. Sexualization on western games are well received but on Japanese, criticized. It is a bias which I hate. But only proofs that game journalists are irrelevant.
