Alright, I've been "out of the loop" concerning user reviews, general consensus about the game and so forth. I've been playing it on my own for the whole duration of one "first" playthrough on Normal with my Barbarian until I finished it. It took me 22 hours to complete it and yes I played at my own pace, consider that slow if you want, it's irrelevant anyway.
Now, after completing it one time and getting to Level 33 in the process, I'd like to share what I think forms the CONS and PROS of Diablo 3 (at least so far, might change later on by playing other classes and playing on Nightmare and beyond).
PROS
º Simple and "good enough" story, nothing mind-blowing, just "enough" for such a game.
º Attention to details in environments and levels is extreme, superb visuals and audio.
º Great physics implementation for game-play purposes beyond aesthetics.
º Great polish in general, few negligible bugs encountered (on my part, and so far).
º Good implementation of "back stories" for hirelings, including their random banter.
º Good voice acting, not "top quality" material, but good for an ARP game.
º Very subjective, but I thought all four Acts were fun. I hated Act II in D2.
º Good enough length for a first playthrough. I was expecting a shorter game.
º Good variety of environment sets, forest, sand, crypts, lava, ice, caves, etc.
º General "feel"/atmosphere of the game is good, it's grim, feels "Diablo" enough to me.
º Good soundtrack (not as good as Diablo II's, no, but good nonetheless).
º Shared stash (finally Blizzard gets it, thanks for that one guys, really).
CONS
* Disclaimer *
Here, within the cons list I'm excluding the fact that the game's launch during its first minutes and the following hours for the first day or so was a complete failure. That in itself was frustrating but not "part of the game" itself. Their servers were hammered, and we could discuss for days on how or if they could have feasibly "predicted" that much demand, but that's for another debate and it has nothing to do with actual in-game features and mechanics related to game-play...
º Generally, the game is too story-driven, it IS less "open ended" than D2, more linear.
º The "exploration" is lacking in the sense that "open ended" levels are lacking in numbers, size, and more importanty in initial availability, and can only be accessed after completing specific quests. In D2 right from the start you're in Act I's encampment and you are free to just go out on the plains without starting quests, and start killing stuff right away. In D3, you don't do that, because you can't.
In D3's Act I, you follow a linear road leading to Tristram, from which point you have to start quests to unlock triggered events that allows you to leave, again on a linear road, to a "more open" but still very restricted map, which leads to and serves to further develop the first quests. It feels like I'm playing a single-player story-driven game, and I have to be on-line to do that, feels wrong.
º In general, the few true "open ended" maps we can just kill mobs in are lacking as mentioned above, but more importantly (a negative) is that they're generally small, or "too small" for what they are (I.E. the only few open ended maps we have). Here I'm referring to the open maps we can access by portals that lead to... well... open ended areas, such as the plains in Act I with the Goatmen, or the outside areas of Act II, or Act III's battlefield near the fortress.
Those areas are too small and they don't "branch out". There's the map itself, limited by its own border, but if you follow the borders there's no adjacent or linked ("branched") map to it. In D2 you'd have for example the Cold Plains, one map, but that map had sometimes two branches, one such "branch" of the Cold Plains is what D3's maps are. They're just "that map" and nothing else, and they're not exactly "as big as" or certainly not "bigger than" the maps we had in D2. The feeling of the map's size in D3 can be perceived differently due to being in 3D and characters being perhaps close enough so that we feel the map is big, but believe me, it's not. Actually opening and looking at the 2D map itself by pressing 'M' reveals how small it actually is.
For me, that's one of my biggest "annoyance" in the game. It's not game-breaking per se, if I want to kill mobs in that same environment again I can like in D2 just leave my session, and start a new one to fill up that map with mobs again and have the randomization process kick in to have a slightly different experience. The issue is that we don't spend enough time in the same map, we can clean them fast.
º General difficulty on NORMAL is easier than anything I can remember from Diablo II starting from Act II. I remember D2's Duriel (just taking that boss fight as an example) in Normal being a pain in the ass because of his constant Holy Freeze aura, which forced me to buy potions to increase my resistance to Cold. I also remember on Normal how D2's Act II in general was just a chore, especially in the crypts and that stupid Maggots Lair to retrieve the Staff, them Ants and their poison. The Normal difficulty of D2 started well and WAS a good challenge on numerous occasions starting from Act II (Act I's Andariel was a bitch due to Poison effects).
Now, for Diablo III... on Normal... well I don't know if it was just because I happened to be playing as a Barbarian, or not (maybe it's because of that more than anything else although it shouldn't be so), but it's just mind-blowingly easy. I died I think 3 or 4 times total, at least one of which because I took stupid decisions and didn't have the "right" skills combinations (I mostly use Cleave with Rupture for constant AoE, combined with Charge, Hammer of Ancients + Bash Rune for super high dps on single target, works well on bosses).
The ONLY actual "challenge" I had was against Belial in Act II where I died two times, I think I was taking too much Poison damage (not sure if it was Poison), so I went back in town, crafted two armor pieces until I got enough extra Intelligence to increase my Resistances, went back to the fight, had a bit less dps, took a bit longer, but I survived. The fight itself was very boring, almost always standing still and just bashing that ugly thing. In D2 I had to kite around Duriel as my hireling tried to do things, I had to micro-manage my pots for me and my hireling, I had to make sure my Cold Resist potions' effects was on and didn't fade out, I had to avoid too many direct hits, I had to MOVE around (and always being slowed by Holy Freeze).
As for the Prime Evil, the last boss... I'd rather not say anything. Let's just say that it was nothing like trying to fight Diablo on NORMAL back in D2, now THAT one was... I could still have nightmares about it (dying? yes, lots of it back then for that fight, especially when playing off-line like I did during the first few years).
º I DO like the hirelings "system" of Diablo III better, MUCH better than D2's. BUT... with that said, they are USELESS in actual combat. By that I mean they deal barely any damage. Their usefulness exists in the sense that they are useful only when they actually use the skill you chose for them to use. The Templar for example cannot feasibly grab any "aggro", the mobs generally just IGNORE him (that's completely stupid seriously Blizzard). BUT... every now and then (perhaps randomly? not sure how or what determines the use of their skill beyond the condition set by the actual skill, if any other conditions exists) they use their skill... such as healer or "intervening" if your health is too low, now THAT part "works" as intended and they "become useful" only WHEN those skills are used by them. But their actual "fighting usefulness" is virtually non-existent, they don't "matter" in the sense that you can count on them as part of your fighting force.
Do I really have to mention how strong an hireling could become in D2? I hope not. For those of you out there new to the Diablo games and whom perhaps never played D2, then I can say that the hirelings in Diablo 2 when well equipped could be almost as powerful as you, sometimes (perhaps often) even stronger especially on early levels in Normal difficulty when they could literally, on paper, hit harder than you could. I still remember back in D2 when I used to play mostly off-line when I used my hirelings to fight more than my own character, with which I would kite around a difficult (usually elites) mob and let my melee hireling do most of the job. Now in D3 the hireling has a good back-story, good banter, they feel "alive", they feel "part of Sanctuary", they have skills, when they use them they are efficient enough... BUT other than that? Nothing. They are generally speaking rather futile, at least in Normal. Now maybe in Nightmare those skills play a more important role... but STILL they don't actually FIGHT per se (excluding fighting in the sense that their animation works when they hit a mob).
º Loot variety. I'm not sure what's wrong, or if I'm just unlucky but so far after a good 25 hours total of play time (now including some in Nightmare) I have yet to find a single unique item, or a single set (green) item. Most of the good rares I've found have very similar stats and have hardly anything random in them outside of the type and/or amount of stats points they provide. The "best" rares I've found or seen at the Auction House all provide extra stats to Strength, Vitality, Intelligence and Dexterity... that's... about it. I mean... I haven't seen a rare item giving something like... +20% extra magic find with say... maybe 25% extra attack speed and maybe... 10% increased armor... or some other "exotic" stats that you may desire more than say just some more Strength.
Really... so far the variety in loot and the type of stats they provide seem to be rather generic. From what I've seen myself of the Nightmare difficulty (still in Act I, just started) it hasn't changed much. Now, don't get me wrong here, I was NOT expecting D3's loot variety to be "more than" D2's, that would be.... almost impossible to accomplish, I'm aware of it. But I WAS expecting more than what seems to be something way too generic. I don't want D3's general item quality to be determined by how much stat points the items provide over another stat point... that'd be silly.
I hope that part changes later on but from now on I think I shouldn't expect much. That, or like I said, I've been somehow extremely unlucky to find pretty much always the same kind of loot (I guess that's mathematically possible, but at that point in D2 I would have found much greater variety of items, not to mention a greater type of bonuses).
º Death penalty... or lack thereof. I'm not sure myself how I would have done it, but having JUST a penalty on your gear's durability and just having in the end to pay some Gold to repair your gear is... unnecessary as an excuse to be used as a penalty for dying. I mean, losing gear durability due to... using your gear (I.E., playing and killing stuff) is understandable, and expected. BUT... using THAT feature as a death penalty? That's cheap, and unimaginative, or at least not original. With THAT said... to be honest, I don't know what I myself would have done, it's a tough choice. In D2 we lost experience starting from the Nightmare difficulty, and dying in Hell difficulty was something you wanted to AVOID AT ALL COSTS (and was generally easy enough to avoid if you played carefully, even off-line, but hell yeah it happened).
Now did I want to lose experience in D3 after death like in D2? Well... no? But... dunno now, maybe it'd have been "better than" just losing some durability on you gear. That one seriously feels cheap and useless. What I think would have been more of a penalty more than anything else if dying would have been for your character to MAYBE not being able to use certain (or randomly chosen) skills for some time, or having some skill cool downs being increased (you know as if you character was still "recovering from death"), or maybe your hireling wouldn't be able to use their skills for some time or... I don't know... SOMETHING ELSE than just losing durability.
º The Town Portal. Ok... being able to have it at all times is good. With that said, why does it have a cast time? To avoid being able to escape back to town during a tough fight? I think that might have been "part of" the reasoning behind it. I just don't get it otherwise. Having a cast time for the town portal is an annoyance... that or the animators really wanted to show off those casting animations.
Additionally, why is it that the Town Portal closes after use? In D2 a portal was pretty much a "self made" checkpoint, the portal closed when the character died, or when the player logged out of the current session, otherwise the portal remained opened where it was originally opened (until of course the player opened a new one). I don't understand some of the mechanics in Diablo III and that one is one of them, it feels "off", D3's town portal isn't exactly "useless", it just seems less practical than D2's. I wasn't expecting that step back from D2, why "fix" something (or rather change it) if it ain't broken, for the sake of changing it? Heh...
º Coming back on my first CONS point, related to the game's story-driven nature. Now the thing I "hate" about it is something I discovered only after completing the Normal difficulty and going to Nightmare. I wanted to "check out something" in Act II, so I thought I would "just go" in Normal Act II. Nope... can't do that.
Well... you CAN do that, BUT... you "have to" leave your "current questing" progress from Nightmare, and actually engage in questing in Normal Act II AGAIN?! Wut? Ok, seriously? What the hell is that? What is the POINT of actually starting ANY of Normal's quests AGAIN for a character that has completed those quests before? For other players who might join? Useless. What if (and I usually do) want to play alone? Can I not give a rats' ass about those Normal Act II quests if I don't want to?
I don't get it. Again, am I playing a single-player story-driven game? Or am I playing a Diablo game? That part of Diablo III is excessively stupid. So if I "leave Nightmare" just to go check something back in Act II Normal's town, what exactly is the point of "losing progress" of whatever I happened to be doing in Nightmare if in the end I might end up having to do any of those quests more than one time whenever comes the time when I would want to "go back to Nightmare" from a Hell character?
What I mean is... let's say I get to Hell with my Barb and I want to go play with a friend who's toon is still in Normal, it means I'll engage in whatever quests he'll be doing in Normal WITH him. In Diablo 2, I could be "on a quest", and anyone could join to help me, but they themselves if they completed those quests before were not actually "engaged in" the said quest that I would happen to be doing. You guys who played D2 surely remember that yes? If my toon still had to kill Act IV's Izual in the Plains of Despair, then anyone who happened to beat that quest before could "come help me" by simply coming in my game session and dealing damage on Izual with me. They themselves didn't have the quest pop again for them, only I had it.
In D3, each difficulty setting is bound to the quests you're on, so if you "leave" your difficulty setting (therefor, you quests) you have to "lose progress" of whatever you were doing, for someone else (or for yourself in a lesser difficulty)? WHAT's the POINT?! I don't get it. Please, someone, if you do "get the reasoning" behind that, let me know (honest question, please do, if you do get it).
º Crafting.
Ok, the system itself isn't "bad" per se. I just don't get the point in being able to craft rares. If I can craft rares, and if the "random 4 properties" that gets randomly attributed to them happen to be about the same as the types of properties on a "randomly found" rare are, then what's the point of having them drop from mobs, or (and) what's the point of being able to craft them in the first place? Becoming "better, faster" than in Diablo 2? Where's the SATISFACTION as a reward from a lucky drop, if in the end, I can just craft them? Do you guys at Blizzard remember (or even KNOW) how rewarding it could be to find your first few rares in Diablo 2 Normal? I couldn't craft them in D2, did I want to craft them? NO! That WAS the point of killing mobs non-stop! To find lucky drops!
Now, in D3, I can just upgrade crafting itself... and... oh, what's that? I can craft a rare helmet that's probably going to give me extra Strenght, Vitalty and/or some Intelligence or Dexterity with maybe the ability to automatically grab Gold by 2 extra yards as I walk by it when it drops from mobs. Wow ok... so THAT is your crafting system? I CAN understand THAT kind of a system for BLUE, "generic enough" magical items, crafting should be there to "help you a bit"... NOT for crafting rare items.
Now, I'll admit one thing here. I played through the NORMAL difficulty. I just started Nightmare. If the variety of items dramatically increase over the future acts and maps, and maybe from Hell difficulty, and if because of THAT possibility crafted rares become pretty much as useless as Blues become in Nightmare, THEN I think I will change my mind about it. But as of now, the "best items" I can get my hands on or can find are just... rares... with basically the same stats as the rares I can craft.
So, in the end, so far, I barely have any satisfaction in finding out that a rare or two just dropped from a boss I killed, because I'm telling myself "meh, I bet my crafted rare can be better than this" (and it probably will be).
TO CONCLUDE
As of now, am I disappointed by Diablo III? Short answer is NO, not at all. Was I honestly expecting DIII to "be like" or "be better than" Diablo 2? NO. That one is virtually impossible, and D3's team is pretty much completely different anyway, the guys who made D3 are not the guys who made D2, it's that simple. NO ONE out there can "remake" a game like D2 was and still is, I knew that from the start. With that said, there ARE certain aspects, some game-play mechanics and features in Diablo III that seem... off, seem unnecessarily implemented or strangely agreed upon internally (like the hirelings supposedly being "alright" the way they are, which I completely disagree with, without necessarily hating them completely).
There's things I don't like (well my CONS list is pretty much what I don't like so far). But generally speaking, the game is GOOD, it IS addicting (not as much as D2 was, or might still be) and IS entertaining. I'm enjoying myself when I play, it's superb to look at, great to hear it, it's just FUN, it really is, but it's not Diablo 2, it cannot be, it never will be. There's ONE THING I think I'll try to do now that Diablo 3 is out. I'll try to start a new game in a few of my other "similar" ARGP games which happened to "be like" or tried to "reinvent" D2 since the past few years. I'll try to play some Titan Quest, some Sacred, some Torchlight 1, amongst a few others. And THEN, I'm pretty sure, I'll be looking at Diablo III and I'll tell myself that there's nothing else like it.
In the end, Diablo III may not be Diablo 2, but D3 is, in my opinion, the best ARGP to come out SINCE Diablo 2, and is, despite its few CONS the one and only ARGP that happens to be "as close as possible" to Diablo 2. So, if you enjoyed Diablo 2, you should enjoy Diablo 3, which I believe was the ultimate goal of Blizzard. If that was the case, they made it.
I still remember giving a "perfect" 10/10 score to Diablo II a few years ago, and I still remember calling it a "perfect game". On retrospect and trying to consider (and remember) things as objectively as I can, I'd still give Diablo 2 a score of 9/10 today, after all those years. I wouldn't go higher than maybe 7.5 for Diablo III, at least so far. It's still an excellent game, on it own, but don't compare it too much against Diablo 2, it would further decrease your appreciation of DIII on its own (that is, of course, if you did play Diablo 2 before, otherwise I could understand a very high score for D3).