I'm still going to play the game. I still enjoy it. I think it's a rather underwhelming game, and the plot was catastrophically bad, but I've invested almost one-hundred hours into it, so obviously I'm not arguing that the game is bad. It's just "if you don't like it, don't play it" isn't an appropriate response, because no one is discussing whether or not I should play the game. When Asdioh said he didn't like immunities in Diablo II, I didn't respond "well if you don't like immunities, don't play Diablo II," because it's a strawman.
I honestly don't care so much about the affixes individually. They're contrived, but a lot of difficulty in a lot of games is contrived. Hell, Inferno difficulty itself is totally contrived: all they did was scale the **** out of everything so that it's stupidly hard. Diablo isn't the sort of game where you can create deep mechanics that allow for an organic increase in difficulty anyway. I just think they should have given more thought to what affixes they allow together. A rare that can wall-off is incredibly hard for a ranged character to deal with, and so is a rare whose ads are invulnerable. Yet sometimes a rare will spawn with both attributes. It's just bad game design, because the only reasonable response for a ranged character is to try and avoid the rare mob altogether.
I also think they should have hired some actual play-testers for Inferno. And for some of the individual affixes. I'm sure they'd have gotten a few "this affix is really not fun" from people, so that they could have created a more enjoyable game altogether. I don't mind the difficulty as much as how totally annoying some of these affixes are, especially when they occur in tandem. More companies should imitate how Valve handled the testing of Portal 2, I think. Though we're dealing with Activision-Blizzard, so I won't get my hopes up for any future titles.