Games take time to work out the details, figure out what the player base wants and what they need, and fulfill those needs to extend the life of the game. I know that Diablo 3 has dissapointed a lot of people - my friends that I used to play with included - however lets be honest. Diablo 2 wasn't released as the best game ever. It went through iterations and patches just like every game that blizzard has made and each time it got slightly better. Then Lord of Destruction launched and it seemed like an entirely different game full of awesome.
Like I said I am a blizzard fanboy so my perspective is skewed, and I'm also an auction house nut. I quit "playing" wow long before I canceled my account because I was having too much fun making money on the auction house. I think that any game that is going to survive ages needs to have the auction house to appeal to certain classes of players. Diablo 2 did well without an auction house but when Diablo 2 came out Auction houses weren't as popular in games as they are now.
My two cents. I expect the downvote. Thanks for playing. :)
I was a blizzard fanboy until this game came out, it really disappointed me that much, and I was in line a few hours before opening on release day to get the CE. I expected the patches, the fixes and etc. over months and years, but the game came out so underwhelming and unpolished, unfinished, and cheesy that I can't even see those patches and fixes helping without overhauling the whole game. It should not have been released until it was absolutely finished, then patched for stuff they wouldn't have caught easily (hard to believe that teleporting past a group of enemies, or ressing during combat was missed).
First play through, normal was okay, the gear wasn't really impressive, I was looking forward to nightmare because normal was easy, but it was so easy that I barely had to pay attention to get through. I was focused on the story, waiting for that twist, waiting for the cool boss fights and places off the beaten path that would make the lore really draw me in. That never came, and it was a big disappointment because as much as people say "Diablo 2 had no story, D3 is the same," I found that the previous title DID have story, it did draw you in, and the characters were cool in the little dialogue they had. Diablo 3 had 2 games to draw from as well as a trilogy of books and 5 that I read, probably more that I haven't picked up yet to bring lore into the game, but it's like it skipped all that and as people say 'phoned in the story'.
Nightmare it started to get interesting, but each progressive difficulty only added another affix to champions, no resistances or immunites to them (inferno zombies can be killed with fire...weird when they crawl out of a furnace before attacking you.) It quickly got old because they didn't get the new abilities that developers claimed we'd only see in later difficulties, bosses were exactly the same (not even a different hue like diablo 2), something to show a difference in difficulties. There were a few unique events like the crumbling vault and wheel of misfortune, but cooler end game stuff like pandamonium event and chaos tristram would have given a chance to really explore the game.
And lastly, co-op was so badly implimented, it's puzzling how it passed their paid testers. 110% life increase discourages group play. 90% would have been better, or 75% per player would make people want to play together because it's in increase in life, but sticks with that group play killing stuff faster. As it stands now, 2 players will kill something slower than 1 would. Magic find is just bad too, split between multiple players, who came up with that?
I don't know why you'd be down voted, but it wouldn't be from me.