|
On April 27 2012 00:31 Ahzz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 00:21 StarStruck wrote:On April 26 2012 04:35 JDub wrote:On April 26 2012 04:12 Endymion wrote:
Sorry but I disagree with their model of doing things if it means that they won't support us between expansions, I would much prefer a monthly sub if it meant that they would update bnet. 20 and communicate better with TL and fans as a whole
But they are supporting us. I gave in my previous post a whole list of things they have done (map pool, matchmaking changes, AHGL sponsorship, chat channels + name changes). Something to add would be developer updates on Heart of the Swarm, which they have done to keep us in the loop about the development changes. You might want to pay a monthly subscription, but I sure as hell don't. And I think I got a huge value out of my $60 purchase, whether or not BNET 2 feels lonely. I love playing SC2, I love the super competitive nature of the ladder, and I love the fact that Day9 and Blizzard support things like the AHGL. Just because they aren't adding major features to Battle.Net doesn't mean they don't care. Honestly, hiring more people to communicate on TL or the BNET forums would be a terrible waste of time and money, as the vast majority of people just want to complain about whatever they can think of to complain about. The battle.net forums are a wasteland filled with trolls and people suggesting the stupidest stuff ever about what they'd like to see in the game. Basically, they did a poor job designing much of the BNET 2 UI. That said, they did a phenomenal job with designing the gameplay, balance, and matchmaking system, and produced a really well-polished game. Given their model (which you do not approve of, but which is the traditional model, and does not require monthly fees), it does not make sense to do a major overhaul of BNET 2 for WoL. Wait for the big time changes in HotS. But whatever you do, don't try to pretend like Blizzard does not care. "But JDub -- they DONT HAVE CLAN SUPPORT!" you say. Guess what? If you want to join a clan you can. If you want to go play in a tournament, you can. Everything that people are complaining about is, in all honesty, really minor features. Shared replay watching? Oh no, you have to e-mail the replay to a friend and sync it up over Skype. LAN? Oh wait, for 99% of players this does not matter, everyone has an internet connection nowadays, and SC2 uses very minimal bandwidth. Reconnection after a disconnect? This would not apply to ladder, as people don't want to wait around for their opponent to come back anyway (60 seconds is more than enough). It would be a really great feature for tournaments, and I would expect such a feature in HotS. As it is, it doesn't affect 99.9% of players, only pros playing in pro tournaments who are unfortunate enough to experience a disconnect. The fact is, Blizzard is working on Heart of the Swarm, and simultaneously ensuring that the WoL competitive matchmaking system continues to function and gives players great games (map pool, matchmaking settings, balance patches). Meanwhile, a few Blizzard employees also showed up to spectate and deliver the $5,000 check at the AHGL Grand Finals. It strikes me as absurd that people take all this and arrive at the conclusion that "Blizzard does not give a fuck about SC2", that SC2 is "a failure". I love this game. Sure, I'd love it even more if the BNET 2 UI was better, but really I couldn't care less about that. I log on every time so I can hit "Find Match", get an adrenaline rush and compete against someone of my skill level in an intense 10-15 minute battle. Playing SC2 is the most fun I've ever had playing videogames. Nah, man. They lost touch a long time ago. All they're doing now is providing lip service. What they are banking on is the brand. If you played any one of their games prior you're most likely to buy into any sort of product they dish out. Gamers are notorious for their poor consumption of video games. It's a trillion dollar industry for a reason. The same way the Apple loyalists keep buying Apple products without seeing the bigger picture. They will keep making their money based off their reputation. Hiring the guy who did Live to program your B.Net 2.0 wasn't the brightest idea they've had and just like us, they're losing sight of the bigger picture. Once again, Blizzard is providing lip service to make it seem like they have everything under control when in reality they don't. We see it in the interviews others have had with them to the press. I have no doubt in my mind one of the things they are working on for HotS is a better U.I. but once again it will be very hit and miss. It's not like this hasn't been a problem before for many gaming companies. Community Managers really cannot do shit. Unless a bug/glitch is very, very critical. The programmers will ignore it and move forward because it isn't one of their priorities. The bugs and glitches are what made SC:BW fun. ;D Oh please, we can all agree that they could have done a better job, but let's face it, there is not a single gaming company that creates products of their caliber constantly... and providing content for their products. And besides, xbox live is amazing. The designer did a great job there. On the other hand, why do I even bother? People will keep complaining no matter what they do, and really, being a multimillion company they need to observe and make decisions carefully so that they don't have to go back on them.
Blizzard for a long-time used to set the standard for PC gaming. This isn't the case anymore and I'm not just talking about what Valve is doing. Lots of companies are starting to catch-up. Titan will have to reaffirm their status. Like I said earlier, when it comes to consumerism gamers are by far the worst. They will practically buy into anything, so I have no doubt in my mind that everyone will buy into whatever Titan is. It could be Hello Kitty Island Adventure all over again and Blizzard loyalists will still buy the thing.
For console it's amazing. When you ignore everything that made things work prior? That's what we call being short-sighted. You can keep trying to protect the products you love, but it doesn't change the fact that anyone can drop the ball and they did. Many times.
People will complain because that is what human's do. They complain.
The root of the problem is with the industry itself and that's why relatively small companies thrive until their studio gets bought out.
|
On April 27 2012 01:13 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 00:31 Ahzz wrote:On April 27 2012 00:21 StarStruck wrote:On April 26 2012 04:35 JDub wrote:On April 26 2012 04:12 Endymion wrote:
Sorry but I disagree with their model of doing things if it means that they won't support us between expansions, I would much prefer a monthly sub if it meant that they would update bnet. 20 and communicate better with TL and fans as a whole
But they are supporting us. I gave in my previous post a whole list of things they have done (map pool, matchmaking changes, AHGL sponsorship, chat channels + name changes). Something to add would be developer updates on Heart of the Swarm, which they have done to keep us in the loop about the development changes. You might want to pay a monthly subscription, but I sure as hell don't. And I think I got a huge value out of my $60 purchase, whether or not BNET 2 feels lonely. I love playing SC2, I love the super competitive nature of the ladder, and I love the fact that Day9 and Blizzard support things like the AHGL. Just because they aren't adding major features to Battle.Net doesn't mean they don't care. Honestly, hiring more people to communicate on TL or the BNET forums would be a terrible waste of time and money, as the vast majority of people just want to complain about whatever they can think of to complain about. The battle.net forums are a wasteland filled with trolls and people suggesting the stupidest stuff ever about what they'd like to see in the game. Basically, they did a poor job designing much of the BNET 2 UI. That said, they did a phenomenal job with designing the gameplay, balance, and matchmaking system, and produced a really well-polished game. Given their model (which you do not approve of, but which is the traditional model, and does not require monthly fees), it does not make sense to do a major overhaul of BNET 2 for WoL. Wait for the big time changes in HotS. But whatever you do, don't try to pretend like Blizzard does not care. "But JDub -- they DONT HAVE CLAN SUPPORT!" you say. Guess what? If you want to join a clan you can. If you want to go play in a tournament, you can. Everything that people are complaining about is, in all honesty, really minor features. Shared replay watching? Oh no, you have to e-mail the replay to a friend and sync it up over Skype. LAN? Oh wait, for 99% of players this does not matter, everyone has an internet connection nowadays, and SC2 uses very minimal bandwidth. Reconnection after a disconnect? This would not apply to ladder, as people don't want to wait around for their opponent to come back anyway (60 seconds is more than enough). It would be a really great feature for tournaments, and I would expect such a feature in HotS. As it is, it doesn't affect 99.9% of players, only pros playing in pro tournaments who are unfortunate enough to experience a disconnect. The fact is, Blizzard is working on Heart of the Swarm, and simultaneously ensuring that the WoL competitive matchmaking system continues to function and gives players great games (map pool, matchmaking settings, balance patches). Meanwhile, a few Blizzard employees also showed up to spectate and deliver the $5,000 check at the AHGL Grand Finals. It strikes me as absurd that people take all this and arrive at the conclusion that "Blizzard does not give a fuck about SC2", that SC2 is "a failure". I love this game. Sure, I'd love it even more if the BNET 2 UI was better, but really I couldn't care less about that. I log on every time so I can hit "Find Match", get an adrenaline rush and compete against someone of my skill level in an intense 10-15 minute battle. Playing SC2 is the most fun I've ever had playing videogames. Nah, man. They lost touch a long time ago. All they're doing now is providing lip service. What they are banking on is the brand. If you played any one of their games prior you're most likely to buy into any sort of product they dish out. Gamers are notorious for their poor consumption of video games. It's a trillion dollar industry for a reason. The same way the Apple loyalists keep buying Apple products without seeing the bigger picture. They will keep making their money based off their reputation. Hiring the guy who did Live to program your B.Net 2.0 wasn't the brightest idea they've had and just like us, they're losing sight of the bigger picture. Once again, Blizzard is providing lip service to make it seem like they have everything under control when in reality they don't. We see it in the interviews others have had with them to the press. I have no doubt in my mind one of the things they are working on for HotS is a better U.I. but once again it will be very hit and miss. It's not like this hasn't been a problem before for many gaming companies. Community Managers really cannot do shit. Unless a bug/glitch is very, very critical. The programmers will ignore it and move forward because it isn't one of their priorities. The bugs and glitches are what made SC:BW fun. ;D Oh please, we can all agree that they could have done a better job, but let's face it, there is not a single gaming company that creates products of their caliber constantly... and providing content for their products. And besides, xbox live is amazing. The designer did a great job there. On the other hand, why do I even bother? People will keep complaining no matter what they do, and really, being a multimillion company they need to observe and make decisions carefully so that they don't have to go back on them. Blizzard for a long-time used to set the standard for PC gaming. This isn't the case anymore and I'm not just talking about what Valve is doing. Lots of companies are starting to catch-up. Titan will have to reaffirm their status. Like I said earlier, when it comes to consumerism gamers are by far the worst. They will practically buy into anything, so I have no doubt in my mind that everyone will buy into whatever Titan is. It could be Hello Kitty Island Adventure all over again and Blizzard loyalists will still buy the thing. For console it's amazing. When you ignore everything that made things work prior? That's what we call being short-sighted. You can keep trying to protect the products you love, but it doesn't change the fact that anyone can drop the ball and they did. Many times. People will complain because that is what human's do. They complain. The root of the problem is with the industry itself and that's why relatively small companies thrive until their studio gets bought out.
how can you say they no longer set the standard when every single RPG and RTS that ever comes out immediately gets compared to WoW and SC2 and falls short?
|
On April 27 2012 01:14 Forikorder wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 01:13 StarStruck wrote:On April 27 2012 00:31 Ahzz wrote:On April 27 2012 00:21 StarStruck wrote:On April 26 2012 04:35 JDub wrote:On April 26 2012 04:12 Endymion wrote:
Sorry but I disagree with their model of doing things if it means that they won't support us between expansions, I would much prefer a monthly sub if it meant that they would update bnet. 20 and communicate better with TL and fans as a whole
But they are supporting us. I gave in my previous post a whole list of things they have done (map pool, matchmaking changes, AHGL sponsorship, chat channels + name changes). Something to add would be developer updates on Heart of the Swarm, which they have done to keep us in the loop about the development changes. You might want to pay a monthly subscription, but I sure as hell don't. And I think I got a huge value out of my $60 purchase, whether or not BNET 2 feels lonely. I love playing SC2, I love the super competitive nature of the ladder, and I love the fact that Day9 and Blizzard support things like the AHGL. Just because they aren't adding major features to Battle.Net doesn't mean they don't care. Honestly, hiring more people to communicate on TL or the BNET forums would be a terrible waste of time and money, as the vast majority of people just want to complain about whatever they can think of to complain about. The battle.net forums are a wasteland filled with trolls and people suggesting the stupidest stuff ever about what they'd like to see in the game. Basically, they did a poor job designing much of the BNET 2 UI. That said, they did a phenomenal job with designing the gameplay, balance, and matchmaking system, and produced a really well-polished game. Given their model (which you do not approve of, but which is the traditional model, and does not require monthly fees), it does not make sense to do a major overhaul of BNET 2 for WoL. Wait for the big time changes in HotS. But whatever you do, don't try to pretend like Blizzard does not care. "But JDub -- they DONT HAVE CLAN SUPPORT!" you say. Guess what? If you want to join a clan you can. If you want to go play in a tournament, you can. Everything that people are complaining about is, in all honesty, really minor features. Shared replay watching? Oh no, you have to e-mail the replay to a friend and sync it up over Skype. LAN? Oh wait, for 99% of players this does not matter, everyone has an internet connection nowadays, and SC2 uses very minimal bandwidth. Reconnection after a disconnect? This would not apply to ladder, as people don't want to wait around for their opponent to come back anyway (60 seconds is more than enough). It would be a really great feature for tournaments, and I would expect such a feature in HotS. As it is, it doesn't affect 99.9% of players, only pros playing in pro tournaments who are unfortunate enough to experience a disconnect. The fact is, Blizzard is working on Heart of the Swarm, and simultaneously ensuring that the WoL competitive matchmaking system continues to function and gives players great games (map pool, matchmaking settings, balance patches). Meanwhile, a few Blizzard employees also showed up to spectate and deliver the $5,000 check at the AHGL Grand Finals. It strikes me as absurd that people take all this and arrive at the conclusion that "Blizzard does not give a fuck about SC2", that SC2 is "a failure". I love this game. Sure, I'd love it even more if the BNET 2 UI was better, but really I couldn't care less about that. I log on every time so I can hit "Find Match", get an adrenaline rush and compete against someone of my skill level in an intense 10-15 minute battle. Playing SC2 is the most fun I've ever had playing videogames. Nah, man. They lost touch a long time ago. All they're doing now is providing lip service. What they are banking on is the brand. If you played any one of their games prior you're most likely to buy into any sort of product they dish out. Gamers are notorious for their poor consumption of video games. It's a trillion dollar industry for a reason. The same way the Apple loyalists keep buying Apple products without seeing the bigger picture. They will keep making their money based off their reputation. Hiring the guy who did Live to program your B.Net 2.0 wasn't the brightest idea they've had and just like us, they're losing sight of the bigger picture. Once again, Blizzard is providing lip service to make it seem like they have everything under control when in reality they don't. We see it in the interviews others have had with them to the press. I have no doubt in my mind one of the things they are working on for HotS is a better U.I. but once again it will be very hit and miss. It's not like this hasn't been a problem before for many gaming companies. Community Managers really cannot do shit. Unless a bug/glitch is very, very critical. The programmers will ignore it and move forward because it isn't one of their priorities. The bugs and glitches are what made SC:BW fun. ;D Oh please, we can all agree that they could have done a better job, but let's face it, there is not a single gaming company that creates products of their caliber constantly... and providing content for their products. And besides, xbox live is amazing. The designer did a great job there. On the other hand, why do I even bother? People will keep complaining no matter what they do, and really, being a multimillion company they need to observe and make decisions carefully so that they don't have to go back on them. Blizzard for a long-time used to set the standard for PC gaming. This isn't the case anymore and I'm not just talking about what Valve is doing. Lots of companies are starting to catch-up. Titan will have to reaffirm their status. Like I said earlier, when it comes to consumerism gamers are by far the worst. They will practically buy into anything, so I have no doubt in my mind that everyone will buy into whatever Titan is. It could be Hello Kitty Island Adventure all over again and Blizzard loyalists will still buy the thing. For console it's amazing. When you ignore everything that made things work prior? That's what we call being short-sighted. You can keep trying to protect the products you love, but it doesn't change the fact that anyone can drop the ball and they did. Many times. People will complain because that is what human's do. They complain. The root of the problem is with the industry itself and that's why relatively small companies thrive until their studio gets bought out. how can you say they no longer set the standard when every single RPG and RTS that ever comes out immediately gets compared to WoW and SC2 and falls short?
My sentiments exactly. All of their games have been rated 9-9.7 out of 10 on ANY gaming website. We can all agree on, that aside from SC1, which was great by an accident really (did they ask for 'progamer advice' on creating the game? no, those didnt even exist), SC2 is the best RTS out there. We _KNOW_ that there is not a single MMORPG that has come even close to the level of WoW aside from graphics, and even there WoW is arguably better since they've spent so much more time actually making the shit look good as a whole. Do I think MoP to be a cash cow? Yes. they're pushing it too far, but on the other hand, the content they'll be creating is probably awesome. They have 10 million subscribers. What should they do, stop adding content now that deathwing is dead? It only makes sense to provide content for the MMO fans while we wait for titan.
D3 will undoubtedly set a whole new standard for it's genre as well. I'm actually ready to bet 100$ RIGHT now that there won't be a single respectable gaming site rating D3 below 9 out of 10. (If there is any 4 out of 5 star ratings, its only because they dont have 4.5)
You think they rate the games high just because it's blizzard? All of the respectable gaming sites? No.
I get your point if your point is that Blizzard is no longer creating ground shattering games like diablo1 that were more or less the first of a kind type of games. However, with the video game industry being so massive and it being around for the last 20 years, isn't that kind of expected anyway? Regardless, they are definately keeping the bar extremely high, and while some of the things they do have flaws and don't make sense (chat channels), and the fact that they probably region locked SC2 only to get b.net 2.0 work properly with WoW (For WoW it makes sense to provide proper customer support for a subscription based game, and they wanted to make b.net 2.0 work with WoW, so lulz. This is my speculation anyway).
However, even so, they continue to bring out amazing products with incredible replay value.
It's good that we complain because that's how they hear us, that's how they improve and thats why we even got those shitty ass chat channels, and that's why they're improving them now. However, many things how people judge them based on these things are just wrong IMO.
|
First of all, not every RTS gets compared to SC2. It gets compared to BW and considering how small the RTS market is compared to the other genres. Surprise!
The Activision-Blizzard executives said it themselves. They actually lose a lot of money producing RTS games because it is a niche market. The money has to come elsewhere rather than selling copies.
That's why you don't see a lot of other companies focusing on RTS and there were some good other one's like AoE and Armies of Exigo, but they stop supporting them after a while, whereas Blizzard left SC:BW with a few programmers who would step in from time to time.
*golf clap*
If that's what you mean by setting standards more power to ya.
MOBA and MMOs as I have stated many, many times now are going to F2P. NCSoft has decided against subscription fees for GW2 to net more sales and microtransactions for cosmetics.
Every game in the market has a shelf-life. You will always have those loyalists who stick around, but at the end of the day it's about making bank.
MMOs and developers are catching on quickly with what works and what doesn't work.
These clones you speak of aren't really clones and it's gaming journalists doing what they do best.
When you are a kid you will buy into what these game reviewers say. When you get older you learn not to take what they say at face value.
Those 9.9/9.8 you speak of yeah, like they know how to dissect an entire game in that lot of time they have to do their review. They barely scratch the service and in many cases they don't have a fucking clue and they all have their personal biases. Hell, I remember when PCGamer and GamePro would even tell you what their reviewers like and dislike and all that jazz. Good times!
Others like to pull the nostalgia card as we see with every other guy calling out an old BW player. Rather foolish, no?
Because many people played WoW first or Everquest or fill-in-the-blank.
They compare it to what they know when the reality is. Really this is nothing new. Just look at my opening sentence and what you said at the top of your rebuttal and you will see exactly what I'm talking about, lmao.
Once again it's a fool's errand.
|
On April 27 2012 01:31 StarStruck wrote:
First of all, not every RTS gets compared to SC2. It gets compared to BW and considering how small the RTS market is compared to the other genres. Surprise!
The Activision-Blizzard executives said it themselves. They actually lose a lot of money producing RTS games because it is a niche market. The money has to come elsewhere rather than selling copies.
That's why you don't see a lot of other companies focusing on RTS and there were some good other one's like AoE and Armies of Exigo, but they stop supporting them after a while, whereas Blizzard left SC:BW with a few programmers who would step in from time to time.
*golf clap*
If that's what you mean by setting standards more power to ya.
MOBA and MMOs as I have stated many, many times now are going to F2P. NCSoft has decided against subscription fees for GW2 to net more sales and microtransactions for cosmetics.
Every game in the market has a shelf-life. You will always have those loyalists who stick around, but at the end of the day it's about making bank.
MMOs and developers are catching on quickly with what works and what doesn't work.
These clones you speak of aren't really clones and it's gaming journalists doing what they do best.
When you are a kid you will buy into what these game reviewers say. When you get older you learn not to take what they say at face value.
Others like to pull the nostalgia card as we see with every other guy calling out an old BW player. Rather foolish, no?
Because many people played WoW first or Everquest or fill-in-the-blank.
They compare it to what they know when the reality is. Really this is nothing new. Just look at my opening sentence and what you said at the top of your rebuttal and you will see exactly what I'm talking about, lmao.
Once again it's a fool's errand.
Maybe it's because english is my second language, but I don't see where you're getting at with this.
'Blizzard games are not as ground breaking as we think they are if we just looked at them more critically'? Is that it?
At the end of the day, if we had a blast then who gives a crap if the game isn't 'perfect'? So I 'only' had 9/10 of a time while playing SC2 today? Not like I would have had a better time playing anything else.
Who cares if other gaming companies are doing catch-up? None of them seem to stand a chance against Blizzard's titles, and while they don't, what is the problem? (No, I don't deny that bethesda or valve doesnt make awesome games, but so far it seems they're making totally different games from blizzard anyway so they cant be compared)
|
Using game reviewer scores and ranks given by reviewing websites as a figure of merit is laughable. The way to spot a good game is to look at the difference between the user score and the pro reviewer score. If user score beats the reviewer score you know it is a good game and the other way around, no matter what the absolute values are.
In regard to people comparing all RTS to Starcraft, is laughable as well. Not everyone thinks that an RTS must come down to a clickfest on a tiny map filled with cockroaches. Blizzard is great, they did amazing things even with a limited game like starcraft, but people really need to open up their minds and their eyes and look around.
|
On April 27 2012 01:44 TRUESCFAN wrote:
Using game reviewer scores and ranks given by reviewing websites as a figure of merit is laughable. The way to spot a good game is to look at the difference between the user score and the pro reviewer score. If user score beats the reviewer score you know it is a good game and the other way around, no matter what the absolute values are.
In regard to people comparing all RTS to Starcraft, is laughable as well. Not everyone thinks that an RTS must come down to a clickfest on a tiny map filled with cockroaches. Blizzard is great, they did amazing things even with a limited game like starcraft, but people really need to open up their minds and their eyes and look around.
Ha at clickfest and limited.
With regards to the comparisons those will never end. Gamers will always do it as I've said regardless.
Doesn't matter whether your HC or it's your first MMO/RTS experience. It will happen.
|
On April 27 2012 01:44 TRUESCFAN wrote:
Using game reviewer scores and ranks given by reviewing websites as a figure of merit is laughable. The way to spot a good game is to look at the difference between the user score and the pro reviewer score. If user score beats the reviewer score you know it is a good game and the other way around, no matter what the absolute values are.
Not entirely true. Its accurate for probably 95% of the time. There was a PS1 game called Legend of the Dragoon which received mediocre scores, but most players who played it regard it as one of the best RPG games ever made (I'm one of them). On the other hand, at launch date the user reviews for Modern Warfare 2 was lower than the review scores because people were giving it 0's and 1's for simply not having dedicated servers, they probably never even played the game to begin with.
|
*deep breath* just got through the thread, turned out to be a pretty good read on a bunch of things around this topic ha. Kinda of funny by the time you get to the end you almost forget where this started : )
|
On April 27 2012 03:57 Meteora.GB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 01:44 TRUESCFAN wrote:
Using game reviewer scores and ranks given by reviewing websites as a figure of merit is laughable. The way to spot a good game is to look at the difference between the user score and the pro reviewer score. If user score beats the reviewer score you know it is a good game and the other way around, no matter what the absolute values are. Not entirely true. Its accurate for probably 95% of the time. There was a PS1 game called Legend of the Dragoon which received mediocre scores, but most players who played it regard it as one of the best RPG games ever made (I'm one of them). On the other hand, at launch date the user reviews for Modern Warfare 2 was lower than the review scores because people were giving it 0's and 1's for simply not having dedicated servers, they probably never even played the game to begin with.
i remember that game, one of the best games ive ever played it was such an amazing game
|
Wow, an entire blog of pulling random numbers out of your ass.
Why is this blog featured?
|
Cool another bash blizzard blog,and this one actually has content. Too bad it doesn't mean anything since all the numbers are made up.
|
I think there's a small bug with the licensing fee (it calculates the added amount for Q1 from the total year fee not Q4 fee).
The viewership numbers seem a bit optimistic for the 1 $ fee. The numbers are not so nice when you start with 250,000 viewers.
|
On April 27 2012 04:02 Forikorder wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 03:57 Meteora.GB wrote:On April 27 2012 01:44 TRUESCFAN wrote:
Using game reviewer scores and ranks given by reviewing websites as a figure of merit is laughable. The way to spot a good game is to look at the difference between the user score and the pro reviewer score. If user score beats the reviewer score you know it is a good game and the other way around, no matter what the absolute values are. Not entirely true. Its accurate for probably 95% of the time. There was a PS1 game called Legend of the Dragoon which received mediocre scores, but most players who played it regard it as one of the best RPG games ever made (I'm one of them). On the other hand, at launch date the user reviews for Modern Warfare 2 was lower than the review scores because people were giving it 0's and 1's for simply not having dedicated servers, they probably never even played the game to begin with. i remember that game, one of the best games ive ever played it was such an amazing game
Fuck yeah, e-five.
On April 27 2012 04:19 mawno wrote:
Wow, an entire blog of pulling random numbers out of your ass.
Why is this blog featured?
Maybe because he's a writer for TL, or so I would presume judging from his icon.
Maybe if you had absolutely no clue about the gaming industry or how business works, this all seems to make sense. But it doesn't if you look harder into it.
|
I honestly desperately wish that I could stop playing/watching this game. Honestly it is only the community that keeps me in this game. Even if their was another RTS that came out it would probably not have many players and therefore not have an incredible community like TL has >.<
|
The problem is, and has been stated in the thread:
1. RTS games are not easy to make. Me and my friends re-made Terraria in under a month and were 2 years into College. It's not as technically up to the standards, but the core fundamentals are all in place and we could release a sick game based off of it by Christmas.
To make an RTS game with a small indie crew, no matter how experienced, would never ever see their product come close to as technically efficient or complete as starcraft 2. RTS games are easily the hardest existing genre to get running smoothly, and SC2 has set a phenomenally high standard to beat.
That said, whatever they have been doing after the release is beyond me, as some of the features the community ask for can be completed by a student in their second to third year in programmng courses. Possibly later for a non-video game programming course but still within the time of their studies.
2. Based on that, a budget to meet the technical benchmark SC2 has made is impossible to meet except by already established AAA companies, and it is still quite a venture for them to tackle something like it. That leaves the only way to make a new RTS king would be to 'reinvent the genre' or make something so creative and awesome that it hits a mainstream market.
Finding the 'fun' of a game is too variable and unpredictable for any company to attempt, because every business is about profit. So to 'defeat blizzard', we would be waiting around for the RTS version of portal. some small indie group start something awesome, it gets noticed and seems promising enough to invest in.
in short, it will never be worthwhile to produce a game as technical as SC2, so to make a better RTS it would have to be more creative/fun + Show Spoiler +(and in turn have the oldschool quirky engines which companies seem to smite from miles away)
It's going to be a while before we get a modern RTS to the caliber of BW, and as much as i hate to admit it, blizzard will command the RTS throne for quite a while to come.. =\
|
On April 27 2012 07:44 Warpath wrote:
That said, whatever they have been doing after the release is beyond me, as some of the features the community ask for can be completed by a student in their second to third year in programmng courses. Possibly later for a non-video game programming course but still within the time of their studies.
You had me with you up until you said this. This demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of how actual development works in real world big-time companies. I'm a software engineer (albeit not one in the gaming industry), and even simple changes cannot just be completed by a student like some small change in an academic project, or indie game developed by 2 people. There is a whole process of designing, testing, UI design, management approval, etc. for any change, no matter the size. And some things may be more complex than they seem.
For example, take "clan support". How is this going to be worked into the UI (need a UI designer, need approval, etc. before programming can even start). Are people going to be limited to being in one clan? How will there clan tag be displayed? How will managing information about the clan work (more UI design)? Will the Battle.Net website need to be updated to reflect this as well (now you need to get the web team involved). Where will the information be stored in the BNET database? Will a new table be added, what will the design for this table be?
Other problems, like rejoining a game after a disconnect, or shared replay support, may be more technically challenging than they seem ("oh but BW had it!"), unless you know the inner workings of how replay watching works, you can't really comment.
|
On April 27 2012 01:31 StarStruck wrote:
First of all, not every RTS gets compared to SC2. It gets compared to BW and considering how small the RTS market is compared to the other genres. Surprise!
The Activision-Blizzard executives said it themselves. They actually lose a lot of money producing RTS games because it is a niche market. The money has to come elsewhere rather than selling copies.
That's why you don't see a lot of other companies focusing on RTS and there were some good other one's like AoE and Armies of Exigo, but they stop supporting them after a while, whereas Blizzard left SC:BW with a few programmers who would step in from time to time.
*golf clap*
If that's what you mean by setting standards more power to ya.
MOBA and MMOs as I have stated many, many times now are going to F2P. NCSoft has decided against subscription fees for GW2 to net more sales and microtransactions for cosmetics.
Every game in the market has a shelf-life. You will always have those loyalists who stick around, but at the end of the day it's about making bank.
MMOs and developers are catching on quickly with what works and what doesn't work.
These clones you speak of aren't really clones and it's gaming journalists doing what they do best.
When you are a kid you will buy into what these game reviewers say. When you get older you learn not to take what they say at face value.
Those 9.9/9.8 you speak of yeah, like they know how to dissect an entire game in that lot of time they have to do their review. They barely scratch the service and in many cases they don't have a fucking clue and they all have their personal biases. Hell, I remember when PCGamer and GamePro would even tell you what their reviewers like and dislike and all that jazz. Good times!
Others like to pull the nostalgia card as we see with every other guy calling out an old BW player. Rather foolish, no?
Because many people played WoW first or Everquest or fill-in-the-blank.
They compare it to what they know when the reality is. Really this is nothing new. Just look at my opening sentence and what you said at the top of your rebuttal and you will see exactly what I'm talking about, lmao.
Once again it's a fool's errand.
i really love broodwar and blizzard games but i thought people ,when talking about anywhere outside of korea , compared every rts to age of empires
|
On April 27 2012 09:05 JDub wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 07:44 Warpath wrote:
That said, whatever they have been doing after the release is beyond me, as some of the features the community ask for can be completed by a student in their second to third year in programmng courses. Possibly later for a non-video game programming course but still within the time of their studies. You had me with you up until you said this. This demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of how actual development works in real world big-time companies. I'm a software engineer (albeit not one in the gaming industry), and even simple changes cannot just be completed by a student like some small change in an academic project, or indie game developed by 2 people. There is a whole process of designing, testing, UI design, management approval, etc. for any change, no matter the size. And some things may be more complex than they seem. For example, take "clan support". How is this going to be worked into the UI (need a UI designer, need approval, etc. before programming can even start). Are people going to be limited to being in one clan? How will there clan tag be displayed? How will managing information about the clan work (more UI design)? Will the Battle.Net website need to be updated to reflect this as well (now you need to get the web team involved). Where will the information be stored in the BNET database? Will a new table be added, what will the design for this table be? Other problems, like rejoining a game after a disconnect, or shared replay support, may be more technically challenging than they seem ("oh but BW had it!"), unless you know the inner workings of how replay watching works, you can't really comment.
of course i lack the real world experience. From where SC2 stands in its current form, art assets could be re-used and the initial engine framework is in place. I agree my argument was abstract from actual real world process, but it was still applicable for the sake of argument.
If the guys at blizzard looked at any suggestion, easiest example: "put bw/wc3 chat into bnet", in the simplest form, chat channels are already in place, chat menus and windows are already in place, you just add some code that lets first users in channels have operator/admin commands, then spend a bunch of time making it bulletproof.
Most of the stuff asked for is direct ports from previous games, so unless the producer wants it reworked, the design foundation is done and complete.
After rereading what you posted, i hope i didn't misinterpret what you were stating =\
|
On April 25 2012 10:28 dartoo wrote:
Wait, your creating a game with 20 programmers? No testers? A lot the cost of creating anything in software is testing.
And for the game itself..Game designers, sound engineers, artists,voice actor, motion capture? You seem to think that creating a game is about putting a bunch of programmers together in a room with computers.
Cost of "Computers" at 30k? Visual studio pro licenses cost 500$ per dev. Even if you have a ton of discounts through ms dev programs, you'll still need a build server, source control, and bug tracking system. Oh and once your done with a few test cases, you'll need to automate them, so you 'll need a bunch of stuff for that.
5 people post release? I think you have more than 5 people on just battle.net forums answering queries . Plus you also have the cost of keeping a massive system like bnet alive(you might think it's broken, but it is still huge system).
A big problem in a field like this is attrition, and to deal with that you'll have indirect cost of HR work/management, corporate structure. I'm sorry but this just looks like you have no idea of developing anything software related.
I'm sorry Endymion, but this. Add to that the team making the 3D CGI videos, the cost of the servers, consumer support, quality check, account and billing department.... This is not 1985 with 3 guys coding a game in their garage....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
